Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Fri, 25 July 2014 07:52 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63BE51B2788 for <internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 00:52:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.458
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.458 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.543, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 IjUxtfWAQ5Sw for <internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 00:52:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51A4D1AD972 for <internetgovtech@iab.org>; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 00:52:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.134.226]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6P7qhXZ019621 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 25 Jul 2014 00:52:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1406274776; x=1406361176; bh=tzl5wDWYZyNRJQ0pOkwXN0hPcR2nTevD2/V7yVG+RwU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=Sm2wLcY+tiudAc4+AhKlYoXU+ClTKMwK1N9BgMmkgUS9o1/GphPABJm5kH0wRYHw4 NjnNp+AuxOUMkHsBfY44dqlkz0F3ZU6O3PnjOtniSpALpvB4BNjnPwlI/TzbS4EhkK +55iAbJ5ylvdkIiuWXYJbdHryY/1n52LTHrJnwdQ=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1406274776; x=1406361176; i=@elandsys.com; bh=tzl5wDWYZyNRJQ0pOkwXN0hPcR2nTevD2/V7yVG+RwU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=lvF86YgX/tpb6oIqzMrKD3HRSVNkRmOunbCrDZnIzNeMoRndF0/f/Csz/KjyMs0pA Y1NUiYeg/LNJxEnMdJE0C4x/hpSH+JL4zwLfEXLaiHkQmtaVyqi1YxcvKFfKH92TWV 9jnAVgw9TIjaZnXKF8YBYLEZZu6Qtu5v1efs2KaA=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140724163149.0ea16280@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 17:58:01 -0700
To: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <9A1009CB-2617-4809-A318-11DCD34E6504@istaff.org>
References: <A193D048-2B67-469A-93BA-C61BB362DA75@vigilsec.com> <53CD1E8A.1060804@acm.org> <FA4238C4-ADDC-435F-9591-E3B074C2F6F6@vigilsec.com> <53CD2300.5050307@acm.org> <20140721143105.GH16966@mx1.yitter.info> <53CD291E.1020801@acm.org> <9045EC0A-E123-4CDC-B87F-5BC32C644C85@istaff.org> <53CD57E8.4000909@acm.org> <B7163126-31B6-4CC6-A711-F225051C294A@istaff.org> <53CD8F41.9060909@gih.com> <53CD939D.5020001@cisco.com> <9DE8F705-9748-407D-8E77-7B787ACD9873@gmail.com> <53CE4B39.1090202@acm.org> <53D016B6.2020000@gih.com> <53D01E6B.8020606@gmail.com> <53D025F3.5050708@acm.org> <53D02828.1030805@gmail.com> <53D02D53.6070501@acm.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20140724012237.0ce22978@resistor.net> <9DBA0ECE-D26D-463F-858A-B990B68BDDD1@istaff.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20140724084607.0bb21040@elandnews.com> <9A1009CB-2617-4809-A318-11DCD34E6504@istaff.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/GjQ6_gQULglg9waryAuyq3ZuGs0
Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org
Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Cross community
X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work <internetgovtech.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/options/internetgovtech>, <mailto:internetgovtech-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.iab.org/mail-archive/web/internetgovtech/>
List-Post: <mailto:internetgovtech@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:internetgovtech-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech>, <mailto:internetgovtech-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 07:52:59 -0000

Hi John,
At 13:52 24-07-2014, John Curran wrote:
>A single misstep is unlikely to cause folks to go to another venue for
>their Internet standards development; it would probably take a pattern of
>decisions which impact others without reasonable opportunity for input to
>cause such an outcome.  This is very unlikely given the open nature of
>IETF standards development, but does highlight the need for the various
>organizations (IETF, ICANN, RIRs) to keep each other apprised of any policy
>or standards development that may be of cross interest.  This has worked
>very well between the RIRs and the IETF, okay with the RIRs and ICANN from
>what I can tell (and I do not know how well the IETF/ICANN communication
>in this area has worked.)

I'll say ok to the above as I do not do the coordination.

>And such folks are free to write Internet Drafts which describe the problem
>(as they see it) with a given protocol or registry requirement, and 
>participate
>in the IETF process to get things changed to something more 
>pleasing.  If their
>arguments have merit, they are likely to be picked up and advanced by others
>via the process, and if not, then the asserted misstep is actually a 
>non-issue.

A generally accepted theory or belief was that nothing could be done 
about 2050 as the previous attempts to update the document resulted 
in failure.  I don't think that the move happened based on the merit 
of the arguments.  There is a thread on ietf@ about something more 
pleasing.  Some things are unsurprising.

>In any case, this is all handled via the existing IETF processes for 
>standards
>and registry policy development; there is no evidence of any need for new or
>additional accountability mechanisms for these IETF processes, 
>particularly to
>the extent that the IETF work predominantly covers technical matters 
>rather than
>"public policy" issues.  That aligns well with the IANA Stewardship 
>transition
>proposal development effort, which is not scoped to include accountability
>mechanisms for "how relevant policies are created, nor the relevant 
>structures
>in which they are created."

I have followed the non-IETF discussions about the word 
"accountability".  In some ways it is about a clash of cultures and 
other considerations.  The IETF can end up as collateral damage in all that.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy