Re: Internet standardisation remains unilateral

[John Day <[e-mail]>]

Couldn't agree more.  I was guessing that there were some who only 
participated on-line but since I didn't know for sure, I didn't go 
that far.  As I said, the problem of attendance has been greatly 
reduced if not eliminated.

Agreed that business interest is the primary driving factor and since 
most vendors are in the developed world, that is where the 
participation comes from.

Every standards committee I have ever had contact with found it 
difficult to get "user" participation,  Generally, those 
organizations argue that the standards work was beyond what they saw 
as their planning horizon.  Of course, this doesn't stop them from 
complaining that they had to buy what the vendors produce as opposed 
to what they might liked to have seen!  ;-)  But we all know how 
management tends to think.  ;-)

Take care,
John

At 2:31 PM +0000 10/23/13, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
>Warning: politically incorrect statements exist in this email.
>
>At 08:58 21-10-2013, John Day wrote:
>>  From my experience over the years, I would generalize this that 
>>the developed world has dominated the standards process in this 
>>field, whether it was the IETF, ISO, ITU, or IEEE and most others. 
>>Most of that has to do with the expense involved in participating.
>
>The expense is a factor, but I would dispute the conclusion. To 
>begin with, I would note Mark Smith, who has a draft open in v6ops 
>but to my knowledge has never attended or only infrequently attended 
>IETF meetings, and Vernon Schryver, who has done quite of a bit of 
>work in DNS and other infrastructure but is rather proud of the fact 
>that he participates only virtually. It's unusual to be entirely 
>virtual and get something done - it's a lot easier for people that 
>rub shoulders physically at IETF meetings and take subjects to the 
>list - but it is possible and is done. People in developing 
>countries can contribute on mailing lists as easily as anyone else 
>can, and at the same level of travel expense and attendance fees.
>
>I think the primary reason that the developed world dominates 
>standards processes is that the developed world has a commercial 
>interest in them. A network operator needs to understand how the 
>protocols s/he depends on work, and needs to be able to design and 
>debug his/her use of them. They don't need to know fine details like 
>Alternate Tuesday Rules except out of interest. The folks who write 
>that code absolutely have to know, and have to be able to ensure the 
>correctness and completeness of the specifications. Hence, people 
>worldwide consume specifications, but the people and companies whose 
>livelihood depends on involvement in the standards creation are the 
>ones primarily involved in creating them.
>
>That's not a slam on developing countries or their capabilities - 
>they have smart and capable people just like the developed world 
>does. But they are, by definition, underdeveloped - they do not 
>operate in the same way that developed countries do, nor do they 
>develop the technologies that the world uses. As they develop 
>economically, they become capable of doing that, as for example 
>India is becoming. But then they are developed countries or at least 
>further in that direction, not "developing".
>
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
>Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
>Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
>
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:signature.asc (    /    ) (00D4056F)