Re: WCIT outcome?
Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Sun, 30 December 2012 13:42 UTC
Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
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 0A38D21F87FF for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 05:42:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.495
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.027, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_RMML_Stock10=0.13]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4tltTdaHzkaI for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 05:42:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oa0-f42.google.com (mail-oa0-f42.google.com [209.85.219.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD20A21F87FD for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 05:42:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oa0-f42.google.com with SMTP id j1so11149634oag.15 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 05:42:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=HjXVamsnqTF0gYkzZf7FMEnM0BspKJTJzE5eMDWo5nU=; b=Sn+0ks0zEFPpSAWHvIx3tgl7VUaD7/0tgvB9gHha7DT1r6m423yshinp19MM3OAJzu sjVA2+0N4OXD0r2YPzkMtmIbTflaeX8pobAPYzOZ2EVWOO9fmU+uC/067kLexRvKDuWG DTFu+aqzBkGIly5h7Z+mt4LG+dals4t6YcsERcj25KtqhzKtLH8Mt/SxoXXvLX3t663C COxQnVWJCJNz8ftOmHnZak02ImpvdwQEdcpojcqDN7UJyOi0CHR7y9PF3Nlpro2AVHe+ xIzgB5yFQaOXtGuy/dsjnKCX28sFXIe08BSYNxGIAxfSgO2LGTaLhMLHfYlEr4ITp+TE zDCA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.60.29.193 with SMTP id m1mr19758586oeh.36.1356874937961; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 05:42:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.76.19.43 with HTTP; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 05:42:17 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20121229192941.0aae33e8@resistor.net>
References: <CAMm+Lwh2cHRY+Dk2_SDtZZmUbPcgRpP89u3DHUcniJDrKrX_pw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMzo+1a0-90dnjnvs48a9DcNN9DY_edF5hH0__4XRuCaLHtL6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwjzjLc2-=4EdxwHOi21B3dOBUohYc5hhXZHL_Pk+iBBmQ@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20121229192941.0aae33e8@resistor.net>
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 08:42:17 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwiC0xtJU4vnGFPvAG4VKZdj7Tf3LfW0+pzwxKWTegRREw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: WCIT outcome?
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
To: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8ff242a1ae8d5804d2121044"
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>
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: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:42:20 -0000
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 1:25 AM, SM <sm@resistor.net> wrote: > At 10:19 29-12-2012, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > >> ICANN is a US corporation and the US government can obviously pass laws >> that prevent ICANN/IANA from releasing address blocks that would reach >> certain countries no matter what Crocker et. al. say to the contrary. But >> absent a deployed BGP security >> > > :-) > > > At 14:46 29-12-2012, Patrik Fältström wrote: > >> In the new world, "governance" is no longer "by decree", "by legislation" >> or similar. In the new world we use the word "collaboration", and that is >> done via policy development processes that are multi stakeholder and bottom >> up. Like in the RIRs (for IP addresses >> > > What people say and what they actually do or mean is often a very > different matter. An individual may have principles (or beliefs). A > stakeholder has interests. There was an individual who mentioned on an > IETF mailing list that he/she disagreed with his/her company's stance. > It's unlikely that a stakeholder would say that. > The reason that rule is useful is that just as it is ridiculous for the US representative to the ITU to attempt to convey the positions of Comcast and Google, it is no more practical for one person to represent the position of Cisco or Microsoft. Where the problem comes in is when you have a proposal that requires the active support and participation of stakeholders like VeriSign. When I told the IETF that DNSSEC would be deployed in dot.com if and only if the opt-in proposal was accepted, I was stating the official position of a stakeholder whose participation was essential if DNSSEC was going to be deployed. It was a really minor change but the reason it was blocked was one individual had the crazy idea that blocking deployment of DNSSEC would cause VeriSign to lose dotcom. He was not the only person with that idea but he was the only person in a position to wreck all progress in the IETF if he didn't get his way. For projects like IPv6 the standards development process needs to be better at identifying the necessary stakeholders and ensuring that enough essential requirements of enough stakeholders are met. Otherwise we end up with yet another Proposed Standard RFC that everyone ignores. The main fault of IETF culture is the idea that the Internet is waiting to receive everything that we toss over the wall. That is not how I view the utility of the process. If I want to have fun designing something I invite at most five people to the brainstorming session then one person writes it up. The only reason to have more then five people is to seek buy-in from other stakeholders. -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
- Re: WCIT outcome? Masataka Ohta
- Re: WCIT outcome? Jorge Amodio
- WCIT outcome? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: WCIT outcome? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: WCIT outcome? Patrik Fältström
- Re: WCIT outcome? SM
- Re: WCIT outcome? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: WCIT outcome? Masataka Ohta
- Re: WCIT outcome? John Day
- Re: WCIT outcome? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: WCIT outcome? John Day
- Re: WCIT outcome? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: WCIT outcome? John Day
- Re: WCIT outcome? Alessandro Vesely
- Re: WCIT outcome? Dave Crocker
- Re: WCIT outcome? John Day
- Re: WCIT outcome? Dave Crocker
- Re: WCIT outcome? Jaap Akkerhuis
- Re: WCIT outcome? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: WCIT outcome? John Day
- Re: WCIT outcome? Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: WCIT outcome? Randy Bush
- Re: WCIT outcome? Victor Ndonnang
- Re: WCIT outcome? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: WCIT outcome? SM
- Re: WCIT outcome? John Day
- Re: WCIT outcome? John Day
- Re: WCIT outcome? Carlos M. Martinez
- Re: WCIT outcome? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: WCIT outcome? Stewart Bryant
- Re: WCIT outcome? John Day
- Re: WCIT outcome? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: WCIT outcome? Dmitry Burkov
- RE: WCIT outcome? Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: WCIT outcome? Noel Chiappa
- Re: WCIT outcome? Dale R. Worley
- Re: WCIT outcome? ned+ietf
- Re: WCIT outcome? Dave Crocker
- Re: WCIT outcome? David Morris
- Re: [IETF] WCIT outcome? Warren Kumari
- Re: WCIT outcome? SM
- Acoustic couplers (was: Re: WCIT outcome?) ned+ietf
- Re: [IETF] WCIT outcome? Patrik Fältström
- Re: WCIT outcome? Masataka Ohta
- Re: WCIT outcome? t.p.
- RE: WCIT outcome? Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: WCIT outcome? Masataka Ohta
- Re: WCIT outcome? Carlos M. Martinez
- RE: WCIT outcome? Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- RE: WCIT outcome? Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: WCIT outcome? Masataka Ohta
- Re: Acoustic couplers (was: WCIT outcome?) John C Klensin
- Re: WCIT outcome? Carlos M. Martinez
- Re: WCIT outcome? Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Acoustic couplers Dave Crocker
- Re: WCIT outcome? Masataka Ohta
- Re: Acoustic couplers Steve Crocker
- Re: Acoustic couplers (was: WCIT outcome?) Janet P Gunn
- Re: Acoustic couplers John C Klensin
- Re: Acoustic couplers John C Klensin
- Re: Acoustic couplers Steve Crocker
- Re: WCIT outcome? Dale R. Worley
- RE: WCIT outcome? Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- RE: WCIT outcome? Tony Hain
- Re: WCIT outcome? Ted Hardie
- Re: WCIT outcome? Patrik Fältström
- RE: WCIT outcome? Tony Hain
- RE: WCIT outcome? SM
- Re: WCIT outcome? Ted Hardie
- Re: Acoustic couplers Dale R. Worley
- Re: WCIT outcome? Randy Bush
- Re: WCIT outcome? Eliot Lear