Re: Policy makers

Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net> Fri, 21 June 2013 14:48 UTC

Return-Path: <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D02A321E8128 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 07:48:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gE67Hfp5I9qw for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 07:48:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50B0121E8126 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 07:48:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.32]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx001) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MLlbJ-1UqraK36GZ-000re5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:48:35 +0200
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 21 Jun 2013 14:48:35 -0000
Received: from host-94-101-1-228.igua.fi (EHLO [192.168.4.115]) [94.101.1.228] by mail.gmx.net (mp032) with SMTP; 21 Jun 2013 16:48:35 +0200
X-Authenticated: #29516787
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19L7fxAvrhL3V/aBvwpjqcaoxzR414uBRbzRq2xx3 9q6hqMf4+F/wOW
Subject: Re: Policy makers
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
In-Reply-To: <51C417AE.6050902@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 17:48:34 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <47F8BB06-CFD0-43C7-85F7-576AC131F5C1@gmx.net>
References: <20130620180046.12461.96111.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130620113213.0ce9b408@resistor.net> <51C417AE.6050902@gmail.com>
To: Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@gmail.com>
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 1.4.1
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 14:48:45 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

A minor remark: The IAB had been interacting with different types of government bodies for a longer time. 
While some of these efforts are not so visible just have a look at the upcoming IETF meeting. There is a BOF about STIR 
and the problem statement document provides some context to activities that have received attention by the regulatory community. 
Here is the pointer: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-peterson-secure-origin-ps-00

Of course, it would be a bit too much to expect regulators to work on the detailed protocol proposals. We do, however, point them to our work and some of them (either though ISOC or by themselves) will participate at the upcoming IETF meeting.

You can easily find many other examples in the IETF, such as ECRIT (emergency services), PAWS (about whitespace database access), or MILE (about security incident information sharing). On the last item we are organizing a workshop on the Friday before the IETF meeting and the topic itself is currently high on the agenda of CyberSecurity activities by various governments. Here is a link to the workshop info: http://siis.realmv6.org/

Ciao
Hannes

On Jun 21, 2013, at 12:06 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:

> 
> On 6/21/13 2:38 AM, SM wrote:
>> At 11:00 20-06-2013, The IAOC wrote:
>>> series of events and programs in South America. This would include:
>>> 
>>>  - Increasing the IETF Fellows and policy makers from the region
>> 
>> I don't see any policy makers reviewing Internet-Drafts.  I don't see
>> any policy makers writing IETF RFCs.  Policy makers do not usually
>> participate in IETF discussions.
>> 
>    You haven't and probably won't. But they were invited (IMHO) not to
> participate in the IETF to review or write I+D but to know the IETF,
> what we do, how we work; and how governments and the IETF can collaborate.
> 
>    I think that ISOC should continue with that effort.
> 
> Regards,
> as
> 
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJRxGfCAAoJEGhJURNOOiAtfzcH/3jfmv2I9yf5JqUTkxWrzgCC
o+a69268JLzSSkqjJ3AoJeQTQpjTAI3FrvlJzJgW8+b5a1W0FFnlIVubSaLVCFqt
h1kbtFiQJCzQyra6qBP2eUUX8l26eQg1xwVhgrkIqgYSEfItW93aQt2Rzyodmb7O
R7XTdoDy+LwgtG+CL91bABNer4GBAvSlhgiuqpZLSjTmbMYONpbPPUw6xNtm9Nzz
S6T4N19po9mTtEMrH27bbiU1QioMoRSvTXuO0DCaYFwksMCyi+Lx8l9vvO0lgl/3
zxoxeaXss43U1YN//JGiKZq5BSIKeGmkvE3jIeFqBL8X8/+cauTXJ/bA0PsEOiI=
=XWQ4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----