Re: [Internetgovtech] US Government response to the European Commission statement

[Andrea Glorioso <[e-mail]>]

Dear Arturo, dear all,

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:22 PM, Arturo Servin <[e-mail]>wrote:

> Forgot to reply to the list
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Arturo Servin <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > Andrea,
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Andrea Glorioso
> > <[e-mail]> wrote:
>



> >> Is there a structured mechanism through which the IETF performs this
> kind of
> >> "efficient mutual interactions", besides participating in mailing lists
> and
> >> organising workshops from time to time?
> >
> > It depends of what you define as structured mechanisms, but there are
> > efforts from the IESG and the IAB to be more involve in not 100%
> > technical activities.
>

I know some of these efforts (and I think it would be useful to have a
complete
list of them somewhere, for easier tracking) and I personally commend IESG
and IAB people for this. I know by experience that walking in different
worlds
is a tiring and sometimes very frustrating exercise (it is as much for the
technical community when dealing with governments as it is the other way
around, believe me).


> If this worked, eventually this would be
> > something than WG and drafts authors may do. There are some examples
> > where, we as technical people try to bring concerns (not just
> > operational but policy concerns) to WG to work on better standards.
>

Such as? (This is not a confrontational question - I'm curious as to what
would
be your idea of "policy concerns").


> > We need to have a balance between flexible and structured mechanisms.
> > Perhaps today we are too flexible but having more structured
> > mechanisms does not seem to be a good alternative.
>

Why not? Too much structure certainly can stifle discussion. But too little
structure can easily lead to energy waste, duplication, lack of
information, etc.

Or to put it another way: I'm not a historian of the IETF but I would be
surprised
if the *current* structure of the IETF (the way WGs are organised in Areas,
the
interactions between WG Chairs and Area Directors, the role of the IESG,
the various steps and back-and-forths that Internet Drafts have to pass
through
before moving to the glory of becoming RFCs or BCPs or STDs, if ever...) was
exactly the *same* structure of when Steve Crocker wrote his first RFC.

(Actually, I know that at the time there was no such thing as the IETF, but
I
hope you get my point).

Structure is just one of the ways in which human beings handle complexity.
If we agree that:

(1) the world of Internet technologies is becoming more complex,
because the Internet has become such a planetary success that it underlies
almost all kinds of human transactions for billions people on this planet,
and

(2) that this introduces the need to take into account other constraints
than simply
"does this packet get from point A to point B as efficiently as possible",

then I fail to see how we can disagree that it would be a good thing to
introduce
more structured  ways (or, if you prefer, more "efficient", "effective",
etc) to ensure
that cross-constituency dialogue in this  "more complex" world truly scales.

Of course, we might well disagree on the premises. ;)

I have the impression that when I use the term "structure", people -
especially
in the IETF community - read "laws". That is neither the intended meaning
nor
a necessity.

Best,

Andrea

--
I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it
in mind.
Twitter: @andreaglorioso
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro