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

Carsten Bormann <> Sun, 12 August 2012 21:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B108F21F8605; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 14:49:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.334
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.334 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.085, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IfIiFLzfMo04; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 14:49:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2ECE21F85E1; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 14:49:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q7CLnb44021008; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 23:49:37 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EA020B95; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 23:49:36 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.0 \(1485\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
From: Carsten Bormann <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 23:49:35 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1485)
Cc: IAB <>, " Crocker" <>, ietf list <>
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 21:49:58 -0000

On Aug 12, 2012, at 19:51, 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.

That is the question that is not clear to me either.

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 run liaisons, which is probably the closest model to adhere to.  We know why we have handed the keys to this to the IAB.  (The present document is not prescriptive anyway, it is descriptive, and the IETF chair in concert with the IAB chair should be able to act on this level after a modicum of consultation.)

If the process question was actually raised to derail the signing of the current document, my reaction would be quite similar to Stewart's.
As I said before, sometimes you have to act.

Grüße, Carsten