Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

SM <> Sun, 12 August 2012 23:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF24121F85CC; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 16:11:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -92.55
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-92.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-9.995, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=0.044, URIBL_BLACK=20, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6syMRwXr+cOf; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 16:11:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC89A21F853E; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 16:11:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (IDENT:sm@localhost []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q7CNAvxq010813; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 16:11:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1344813062; bh=5qUmlgxdB/MBXUfyXm6hhiapuVrGZTmRyFQ/qS0BFto=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc; b=hQh8UVekILqEbtMboL5Z0K8pxFVZapWSYP0zd/BhV3xjxfr8KkKBIinWGw4mc6pjY 7gIDcJgOLzpJe+1sRZFnLX9b+U04wtF9Ezi+DO3hqDTnjbBxvo58HpQaDeEkvMXE1Z xawNR2OJE6NDWcNEJBhar+6JfuLPTqu96JIeQexs=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1344813062;; bh=5qUmlgxdB/MBXUfyXm6hhiapuVrGZTmRyFQ/qS0BFto=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc; b=MnpZeyzpmOeLy7j7GdFHxUsGFwEtuvkklJkrifiOKth7NiYUtCngYCI9CNoHYlq+5 g4Zcc5uQ33jJ4J7bjhUxQcvS3EodyIBfQRyqapUGSpE2eslKsxLiN+PlFaMaKW6kqH 16bmzo3pmBRcMRh6hgEKKSaRv1nF/eOoXRs+G0pE=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:58:27 -0700
To: IAB <>, IETF <>
From: SM <>
Subject: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 23:11:07 -0000

At 10:51 12-08-2012, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>If I interpret what you seem to be saying, it is that you care
>more for the micro-observance of IETF protocol, than
>taking steps to avoid Internet governance being
>transferred by government decree to a secretive
>agency of the UN that runs by government majority.

Several hours ago the IAB approved collaboration guidelines with "a 
secretive agency of the UN which is run by government majority".  The 
US has already stated that it "will not support proposals that would 
increase the exercise of control over Internet governance or content" 
( ).

Internet governance is somewhat like political prostitution ( ).  If the governments of the 
world want to fight about that for the benefit of humanity, it is 
their choice.  I don't see why the IETF has to get into a fight about 
Internet governance.  It is ok if the IETF Chair wants an affirmation 
supported by various SDOs to thrust under the nose of delegates in 
November.  I understand that in some venues the only way to be heard 
is to make pompous speeches.

At 14:49 12-08-2012, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>I do believe the process question is an absolutely useful one.  We 
>should have a process that is able to handle multilateral activities 
>that include the IETF, with an element of negotiation, even 
>compromise, and so on.  This is a case where leadership is actually 
>required, and I don't think that process is an established one at 
>all.  We do know how to

The IAB Charter allows it to handle multilateral activities.

>If the process question was actually raised to derail the signing of 
>the current document, my reaction would be quite similar to Stewart's.

A person expects people to behave as sheep if the person mentions 
"collective empowerment" and doesn't want anyone to raise 
questions.  The person could also smile, nod and ignore the questions 
as the sheep won't pursue the matter.

If a person wanted to derail the signing of the current document the 
person would only delay the outcome by about a month.  It would be 
somewhat entertaining as the IAB has already taken a vote on the 
matter.  Please do not ask me to elaborate on how this might be done.

>As I said before, sometimes you have to act.

And play god. :-)

The following are selected quotes:

   "Cooperation. Respectful cooperation between standards organizations,
    whereby each respects the autonomy, integrity, processes, and intellectual
    property rules of the others."

The IETF should not be disrespectful by making any comments about the 
ITU which may have a negative connotation. :-)

   "Collective empowerment. Commitment by affirming standards organizations
    and their participants to collective empowerment by striving for standards

The affirmation is not a commitment taken by IETF participants.  The 
IESG knows the path to take if it would like to get such a commitment.