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

[Andrea Glorioso <[e-mail]>]

(I'm not speaking on behalf of the European Commission right now)

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Arturo Servin <[e-mail]>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