IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Observations on (non-technical) changes affecting IETF operations

Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joe@cdt.org> Fri, 25 March 2016 10:45 UTC

Return-Path: <jhall@cdt.org>
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 3204B12D0F1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 03:45:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cdt.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rc--x2pbwyO2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 03:45:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x22c.google.com (mail-vk0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6631512D14B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 03:45:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id z68so88152979vkg.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 03:45:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cdt.org; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=YwP3KVisYsTVAjfls4MGXQ99BXMY5hF3J0JDGPSojIY=; b=sYIvpmjNn8fzh4zo4o0fdSRVmYUc21o+mwnP+GDszugHyWhhiHNr0sDtMEX02QSUep JC06BqeUKvmBP43039eZY06klHYeC5Ut9e3ervb++mSH9+CaeZiEeiI0HPzrfZm0zvQk 4UWKHb6LBuVeXldDuzNgHh3g4Bf7An5icmS6s=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=YwP3KVisYsTVAjfls4MGXQ99BXMY5hF3J0JDGPSojIY=; b=RfJeDrygj0mBMfjIj8qWxKFJlP68WBJEzr+NdnVtSF7037Ttd6E9LzXUvzKtrBAfo0 6bJsSGzIf5vnD9aaNGr/JDPbbRHbn32jk5ru+FW8+3AfzrqjJBbTnPs8VweA+yx2xlRN kux0DHXvxYYR6OTWFR2JGdc+k7i/7yJVAztwElDfiLuN+QAGyTy5U3m78xb0uMBVYHec orRUq/H7HeCz5LGYanpDMnQtR5+TE9UH8z1O3g1MG2o31lHwmr30Uvda8cYEmSf9XdKS I14EqOiXMB2T+vVuV4DCAQ9DZUlLPk4rtNPKIjWHkVVVuJt7szifMJkTaBrhhet75i3D LIJA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKr3M7I2vQeReJBPyjuoG2dIV3P0fsl0Ejzz7fG7f/6cmyvN0N1SKhbX83J3vn0CJxWY6jmpailT9ox3wyG
X-Received: by 10.31.150.76 with SMTP id y73mr6965941vkd.84.1458902716388; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 03:45:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.70.156 with HTTP; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 03:44:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20160324231112.0e0a2d78@elandsys.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20160324231112.0e0a2d78@elandsys.com>
From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joe@cdt.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 06:44:56 -0400
Message-ID: <CABtrr-Xy412wMyagmx9+n98iCmyN6mOiY7mL0VVYgjo0tv3Deg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Observations on (non-technical) changes affecting IETF operations
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/z7bt_yJJFOtoeFu8J0ghPgq_5og>
Cc: Steve Olshansky <olshansky@isoc.org>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 25 Mar 2016 10:45:19 -0000

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 6:06 AM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> wrote:
> Hello,
> At 15:03 29-02-2016, Jari Arkko wrote:
>>
>> The team has been working and they have today published
>> an -00 draft. We'd love to have your feedback and thoughts
>> on this topic!
>
>
> The draft is interesting.  Some of the topics which might be of interest
> are: succession planning, fragmentation and cross-culture communication.
>
> If I am not mistaken it is the first time that a (IETF) draft acknowledges
> that politics and technology are intertwined.

I guess it depends on what you mean by politics. There have certainly
been drafts that discuss law and policy considerations of potential
IETF standards, including this one from us from 2003 (long before I
was here at CDT), that while it never was seen through to official
Informational RFC status, still has a lot of good material in it:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morris-policy-considerations-00

"This document is motivated by the recognition that technical design
decisions made within the IETF and other standards bodies can have
significant impacts on public policy concerns."

-- 
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
Chief Technologist, Center for Democracy & Technology [https://www.cdt.org]
e: joe@cdt.org, p: 202.407.8825, pgp: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key
Fingerprint: 3CA2 8D7B 9F6D DBD3 4B10  1607 5F86 6987 40A9 A871

CDT's annual dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016! https://cdt.org/annual-dinner

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email