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

There are plenty of "standards" bodies. 

Mostly public policy should encourage and protect open standards and their adoption in the market not define them.

Intervention may be justified if standards are being gamed by vested market dominant interests because that is likely to negatively impact on competitive open networks and markets over them. But in a global space with many local markets the challenge is I expect better focussed on engaging local interests globally in standards activities that reflect real market needs rather than defining some local special sauce.

Liaisons can and have been established  in european context. I remember helping set one up managed by european ISOC chapters with IAB approval after IETF London in 2000 with EU ICT Standards board for example. I would observe that defining local Standards has ... limited utility as it has scope. 

Christian de Larrinaga

> On 13 Feb 2014, at 13:02, Andrea Glorioso <andrea@digitalpolicy.it> wrote:
> 
> (I'm not speaking on behalf of the European Commission right now)
> 
>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "An effective
>> multistakeholder approach to specification setting on the internet
>> will be based on efficient
>> mutual interactions between technical and public policy considerations
>> so that technical
>> specifications more systematically take into account public policy concerns."
>> 
>> It a good goal, and in some way I have seen some IETF efforts in that
>> direction (this list for example). We just need to be careful in not
>> add to much policy to technical discussions or to create a new
>> standard body with that aim.
> 
> Honestly innocent question. Why wouldn't you want to create a new standard body with this aim? Inefficiency? Duplication? 
> 
> 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?
> 
> I have been following - and enjoying - the debate on IETF-discuss on the perpass proposal. I was often struck by the differences of view, among IETF participants, on whether the IETF should even talk about the issue.
> 
> (Note: I'm not taking a position on the whole "pervasive passive surveillance" issue for the time being. It doesn't mean I don't have one, but simply that I don't think it's relevant for this particular discussion).
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Andrea
> _______________________________________________
> Internetgovtech mailing list
> Internetgovtech@iab.org
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech