Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Involvement from other constituencies

From: Brian Trammell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2014 10:44:53 +0000

On 1 Mar 2014, at 5:26, Pranesh Prakash <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Russ White <[email-masked]> [2014-02-26 15:12:56]:
>> 
>>> And this, I think, illustrates the main reason why the IETF's "show up on
>> the
>>> list" policy _doesn't_ lead to increased input from policymakers: the key
>>> problem here seems to be to be the language barrier. We deal with
>>> mechanisms, policy people with policy, and even then the vocabularies for
>>> the same concepts are often wildly different.
>>> 
>>> We (generally) try very hard in the IETF to define protocols which are
>>> "situation agnostic"; this comes from the fact that separation of
>> mechanism
>>> (how you do things) and policy (what exactly it is you want to do) is good
>>> engineering practice, not least because what I want to do may not be what
>>> you want to do, and what we both want to do may change over time.
>>> Experience has shown that when we do embed policy, we create protocols
>>> that are less scalable, less capable, less successful.
>> 
>> +1
>> 
>> Thanks for saying this, Brian -- you expressed it perfectly.
> 
> I couldn't disagree more strongly with this :)

Thank you for perfectly illustrating my point about "wildly different vocabularies" :)

> Protocol decisions whether it is the trust system which underlies BGP,

Not a member of the routing tribe so I can't answer questions about the BGP trust model in any sort of detail, but I would characterize BGP's trust model as "technically expedient" and "risk inconsiderate" rather than "political". 

>  the CA system,

My opinions about the mess the Web PKI has become preclude me from speaking objectively about it, but you're right, I can't disagree. I'll note that the IETF inherited most of the decisions there.

> or the attempting to make all public XMPP servers use s2s and c2s encryption by default,

Decisions taken in reaction to the revelations about pervasive surveillance are, agreed, inherently political.

> or many other kinds of decisions, are inherently deeply political.

> The decision to require all SMTP servers to only prepend to the "received" header, has political ramifications.

Indeed. As does the very decision to have a packet-switched network with source _and_ destination addresses at the network layer. I'll point out that the people who make all this stuff work day to day really like both of these decision, because they make it not-impossible to fix things when they break.

> The attempt by so many people to "fix" what they see as the broken system of e-mail (since until further changes are made[1] there is neither metadata integrity (for the most part, discounting that which DKIM covers) nor is there any possibility of concealing metadata) is also deeply political.
> 
> The question of whether to allow for patent-encumbered standards is a deeply political question.[2][3][4]

Heh. I find myself forced to agree with you here.

> It is, imho, futile to pretend that engineers don't make political decisions all the time.

"That engineers don't make decisions with political implications all the time" I can agree with.

Cheers,

Brian

> [1]: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cailleux-secure-headers-04
> [2]: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3979.txt
> [3]: http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/nokia-comments-on-vp8-patent.html
> [4]: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipr-wg/current/msg02436.html
> 
> -- 
> Pranesh Prakash
> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
> T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
> -------------------
> Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
> M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
> PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internetgovtech mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech

---

From: "Russ White" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2014 08:21:48 -0500

> Protocol decisions whether it is the trust system which underlies BGP, the CA
> system, or the attempting to make all public XMPP servers use s2s and c2s
> encryption by default, or many other kinds of decisions, are inherently
> deeply political.

So long as you define, "political," as "having anything to do with the actual operation of a network," then you are right. In the same sense, all laws are enactment of a moral system (you not only can't "not legislate morality," you must always actually "legislate morality"). But the point of engineering, particularly successful engineering, is to remote politics and policies, as much as possible, from the equation, and to focus on solving a specific set of technical problems at hand. 

What you seem to be saying is that because there are implicit political results from the standards making process, we should abandon the pretense that standards have no political overtones, and hence we should bring politics _explicitly_ into the process -- and not just the politics of patents, or the politics of privacy, but the entire gamut of politics. I don't see how widening the problem is going to help clarify and inform the decision making around technical issues that should be properly discussed in the IETF.

Can you give me an example of where you think the injection of politics at the level being discussed here (not patents, and not privacy), would create a better technical standard? What specific "social impact," can you point to that should be considered in BGP, for instance?

:-)

Russ

---

From: John Curran <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2014 09:27:13 -0500

> So long as you define, "political," as "having anything to do with the actual operation of a network," then you are right. In the same sense, all laws are enactment of a moral system (you not only…

Focusing on the technical to the extent possible is a good goal and matches 
the expertise commonly present at the IETF.

> What you seem to be saying is that because there are implicit political results from the standards making process, we should abandon the pretense that standards have no political overtones, and hence we should bring politics _explicitly_ into the process -- and not just the politics of patents, or the politics of privacy, but the entire gamut of politics.

I would hope that is not what Pranesh is suggesting; I believe he is 
suggesting is that protocols often have certain political or social 
values embedded in them, and we should not be blind to that possibility.

I also believe that there can be implied social/economic values embedded
in a policy (a common example include privacy, where many IETF folks have 
fairly consistent values and thus strive not to make personally-identifiable 
values visible globally, etc.)

If the suggestion is to be explicitly adding discussions of economic or 
social values into the process, I would also doubt that being a valuable 
role for the IETF to serve.

> I don't see how widening the problem is going to help clarify and inform the decision making around technical issues that should be properly discussed in the IETF.
> 

We have to face the fact that the remarkable success of the Internet means 
that it very difficult for a given government or community to _not_ use IETF 
protocols and still achieve global interoperability.  This in turn only 
reinforces the need for protocol development processes which are open to 
all interested parties, and transparency in decision making.

When we need to consider factors other than purely technical merit, it may 
result in social, political, or economic tradeoffs being integrated into the 
protocols, and it would be best to do so based on extremely widely held norms 
and values.  To avoid the IETF having to specifically hold discussions to 
develop positions of economic or social values and norms, it would be best to 
rely instead on explicit statements developed elsewhere when available (e.g. 
the EU's personal data privacy directive, UN GA privacy rights on the Internet
<http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/68/167> with respect
to perpass), as the wide applicability helps in avoiding specifications which 
might be in conflict in a significant region and thus contrary to the goal of 
having prototols which facilitate global Internet communications.

Mechanisms should be provided for promoting high-level awareness to all 
interested parties (including governments and other stakeholders such as 
civil society) of specification development which has significant potential 
for incorporating public policy tradeoffs in the final specifications; 
not so that the political discussion can be brought to the IETF, but so 
that parties that follow and potentially even point out any widely endorsed
statements of norms and values which the IETF should be aware of during the
protocol development activities.

FYI,
/John

---

From: "Russ White" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2014 10:05:16 -0500

> protocols, and it would be best to do so based on extremely widely held
> norms and values.  To avoid the IETF having to specifically hold
discussions to

> If the suggestion is to be explicitly adding discussions of economic or
social
> values into the process, I would also doubt that being a valuable role for
the
> IETF to serve.

These two statements are contradictory. Either the IETF should avoid all but
the most bare and obvious political issues that relate to the formation of
standards directly (such as patents) and the operational qualities of the
network (such as privacy), or the IETF should explicitly include politics in
the process at a social level. We can't say, "the IETF has no expertise
here, but it must inject itself into this debate."

Privacy is a perfect example. Many folks are upset at pervasive monitoring
efforts. Others are upset at the collection of information by large
corporations. But we can resolve this to a simple usability issue -- trust
-- and leave the other politics out of it. If users can't trust their
information to be private, they won't (or shouldn't, since we've discovered
that combining a few carrots with a large dose of obfuscation often works
quite well in getting users to give up information they probably shouldn't
be giving up) use the technology. Therefore, if the IETF intends for these
internet protocols to be used, we must attend to the perception (real or
not) that it is easy to monitor communications transmitted using these
protocols. There may be a thousand policy reasons to support or oppose such
efforts, but by distilling the political into the narrowest range possible
and phrasing the problem in an operational way, the engineering problem can
be examined and dealt with. Bringing as much of the political as possible
back into the picture isn't going to clarify the process, it's going to make
the process worse.

In other words, of course standards have political implications -- but the
point of the process is to remove the political implications as much as
possible, so the problem becomes as close to a pure technical problem as
possible. You might not be able to do this perfectly, but I've not seen an
actual workable suggestion put forward as an alternative. 

> protocols and still achieve global interoperability.  This in turn only
reinforces
> the need for protocol development processes which are open to all
> interested parties, and transparency in decision making.

Can you point me to some specific part of the IETF process, as it exists
today, which is "not open," to government participation? In what way is it
"not open?" If the process is to be changed to "allow governments a seat at
the table," we need much more than, "standards are political and the process
isn't open." We need specific proposals to evaluate -- and hopefully the end
goal, rather than just some intermediary "starting point." It's often the
case in our world that we have a lot of "camels in the tent," problems; I
would like to avoid the nose unless we know what the whole camel looks like.

:-)

Russ

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2014 10:29:42 -0500

On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 09:27:13AM -0500, John Curran wrote:

> protocols and still achieve global interoperability.  

That's not merely a "fact", it's a tautology.  If you want global
interoperability ("with the Internet" is implied in your original),
then you have to use Internet protocols.

> This in turn only reinforces the need for protocol development
> processes which are open to all interested parties, and transparency
> in decision making.

I agree, but I think it's important to recognise that many of the
people who appear to want the pony named "using the Internet without
using IETF protocols" actually don't want a process that is open to
all interested, or transparency in decision making.  Many of them
instead wish the decisions to be taken by treaty bodies in closed
rooms.  I think it is not surprising that people are suspicious of
importing "political considerations" into the protocol-making
discussion, because that looks like a Trojan horse for "takeover by
treaty organizations".

> protocols, 

I strongly disagree with this approach to describing the question.  If
we need to include certain social, political, or economic tradeoffs,
then those are part of the use cases that the protocol is supposed to
be addressing.  Therefore, this is not some case of considering
factors other than purely technical merit: there's no such thing as
"pure technical merit" without the operational conditions expected of
the protocol.  This is engineering we're supposed to be doing, not
mathematics.

What we sometimes have to confront, however, is indeed the question of
whether this or that tradeoff ought to be on the list.  That is, to my
way of thinking, the difficulty we're having, but it's not different
in kind to the problem developers have always had in understanding
what the product and sales people want.  Getting the requirements
right is hard, and it gets harder the further one gets from being the
end user.  In the early period of the Internet, approximately all the
users _were_ the developers, so figuring out the requirements was
probably easier in that you could talk to people and find out their
problems.  It gets harder the less representative of actual users our
population gets. 

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: John Curran <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2014 10:30:13 -0500

> here, but it must inject itself into this debate."

Russ - 
 
 The exact opposite - the IETF should realize that protocols can indeed 
 embed social/political values, but it should _not_ become a forum for 
 such discussions.  Instead, it should strive to make Internet protocols 
 as globally useful as possible, and simply _reference_ those externally 
 developed statements values or norms that it decides to specifically 
 recognize as drivers for particular protocol decisions.

> back into the picture isn't going to clarify the process, it's going to make

 If a particular tradeoff is necessary to make the protocol desired by
 the user community, and that is the driver that the IETF wishes to 
 reference, then that's fine.  <draft-farrell-perpass-attack-03.txt>
 does not refer to users or trust, and instead defines it has a 
 security problem.  Personally, I'd prefer the approach you suggest or
 prefer referencing a widely accepted statement of human privacy being
 equally applicable to the Internet - either approach acknowledges the
 requirement without having the IETF developing its own position on   
 personal privacy applicability on the Internet (an undertaking would 
 indeed encourage having a political discussion at the IETF.)

> actual workable suggestion put forward as an alternative. 

 I think we're agreeing on the goal ("remove the political implications as 
 much as possible"), but the question is what to do where it is unavoidable.
 My suggestion would be to leverage widely held statements of such social
 or political norms rather than having to debate them in the IETF. (and this 
 is not much different than leveraging international consensus of two letter 
 codes for reference to countries and subdivisions, another political matter)

> "not open?"

 No, the IETF does very well in this respect.  

> If the process is to be changed to "allow governments a seat at
> isn't open."

 The process doesn't have to be changed, but the IETF needs to have a model
 for how governments engage with it when desired and spend some time actually
 explaining that to governments (or run the risk that they'll decide on other
 approaches to meet their needs)

> We need specific proposals to evaluate -- and hopefully the end
> goal, rather than just some intermediary "starting point."

 I describe an end point; governments should be able to engage in the existing
 processes just as any other party; it would, however, be helpful when a government
 expresses a particular social/economic requirement if the IETF could consistently
 explain that it prefers not to twist the protocol development for one countries view, 
 but if some widely-held statement of such a norm or value that can be referenced,
 that might be worth considering since IETF standards intended to be scope Internet,
 i.e. applicable globally.  

> It's often the case in our world that we have a lot of "camels in the tent," problems;
> I would like to avoid the nose unless we know what the whole camel looks like.

See my prior paragraph for the entire camel I propose letting in; no change
to existing IETF processes, but potentially a clear approach to responding
to governments asking about how to "engage with the IETF" on their particular
social/political topic of interest.

FYI,
/John

---

From: Andrea Glorioso <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2014 16:35:55 +0100

Dear John,

On Saturday, March 1, 2014, John Curran
<[email-masked]<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[email-masked]');>>
wrote:

> norms

This is very well put, but could you clarify what you mean by "high-level"
in this context?

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

---

From: "Russ White" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2014 10:50:40 -0500

> or political norms rather than having to debate them in the IETF. (and
this  is
> not much different than leveraging international consensus of two letter

The problem is, in the end, that using consensus statements doesn't always
actually guarantee correct (or moral?) action (or even acceptance).

> for how governments engage with it when desired and spend some time
> actually  explaining that to governments (or run the risk that they'll
decide on
> other  approaches to meet their needs)

>  I describe an end point; governments should be able to engage in the
> existing  processes just as any other party; it would, however, be helpful
> when a government  expresses a particular social/economic requirement if
> the IETF could consistently  explain that it prefers not to twist the
protocol
> development for one countries view,  but if some widely-held statement of
> such a norm or value that can be referenced,  that might be worth
> considering since IETF standards intended to be scope Internet,  i.e.
> applicable globally.

So you would suggest... Perhaps a new IAB liaison effort, or a new IAB type
group, or trying to get the ISOC to play a more active role here, or... ?? 

:-)

Russ

---

From: John Curran <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2014 11:02:38 -0500

> then you have to use Internet protocols.

Be very careful... If the governments don't realistically have any choice 
in the use of the Internet (i.e. participation is effectively mandatory 
due to the social/economic benefits), and obtaining such benefits requires 
use of Internet protocols as proscribed by the IETF, then we're fairly 
distant from the principle of "Standards are voluntarily adopted".

(i.e. if the IETF wants to see itself overrun with governments and lobbyists,
 simply make plain the proclamation that "IETF Standards are mandatory for the 
 Internet" and then sit back and watch the fun...)

> the protocol.  This is engineering we're supposed to be doing, not

If the IETF decides that some use cases are valid, and others are not
valid, and the chosen use cases support particular social values in 
them (e.g. individual privacy), then the protocol decisions based on
those use cases is indeed embedding certain social/economic values.

If you wish to say that "technical merit" means satisfying the use
cases, then that is fine, but then deciding which use cases are valid 
requirements is effectively making tradeoffs in supporting various 
values that will make the protocol successful (and some of those 
values are social/economic)

> problems.  It gets harder the less representative of actual users our

Andrew - I actually agree very much with this, but am concerned that 
the "near mandatory" nature of the Internet (and increasing government
awareness of same) is going to result in one of two outcomes; either
governments trying to figure out how and when the IETF is setting its
requirements (to make sure that their views are considered in some manner)
or them going off completely independently and attempting to legislate 
(either singly or jointly) various outcomes without any consideration 
of the technical implications.  

Is it possible for the IETF to be sufficiently open and understandable 
to governments (particularly when they act in fairly large groups and
stick predominantly to referring us to statements widely-held social,
and economic principles) so that they'll support such an approach for 
pragmatic engagement?

I would like to think so; the alternatives are debates of such social
and political issues taking place directly at IETF (not necessarily 
helpful) or taking place elsewhere and likely going down into technical
matters for which the expertise is at the IETF.

FYI,
/John

---

From: John Curran <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2014 11:05:50 -0500

> actually guarantee correct (or moral?) action (or even acceptance).

Correct.  The IETF must be able to decide when/whether to reference any
such statements in their determination of the protocol requirements.

> ...

Please no...  simply common understanding of how governments should engage 
with the IETF, and some documentation of same... e.g. an internet-draft.

/John

---

From: Andrea Glorioso <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2014 17:06:43 +0100

> discussion, because that looks like a Trojan horse for "takeover by

On the other hand, by being overly suspicious to people / organizations
which are simply tying to make sure the range of "operational
considerations" (as you very well put it in your message) is broad enough
to avoid problems down the road, the risk is actually empowering those
parties which are actually hiding in the Trojan horse.

I don't have a problem with mistrust - a certain degree of it is
unavoidable and might even be beneficial, if it forces everyone to speak
their mind clearly in order to overcome it - but there are moments in which
mistrust can become paralyzing. (I'm not talking specifically about you)

> the protocol.  This is engineering we're supposed to be doing, not

As I said - this is very well put.

> problems.  It gets harder the less representative of actual users our

So would you agree that in order to make sure all the requirements are
factored in, we need to make sure the number, but especially the range
of expertise, sensitivities etc of those who participate in the definition
of requirements should be enlarged? Please correct me if I misunderstood
your thinking.

Best,

Andrea

--

---

From: Pranesh Prakash <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2014 21:08:16 +0100

On 1 March 2014 7:34:45 am GMT+01:00, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:
>Hi Pranesh,
>At 21:26 28-02-2014, Pranesh Prakash wrote:
>>The decision to require all SMTP servers to only prepend to the 
>>"received" header, has political ramifications. 

>to list that under political ramifications or not.  I made the 
>following argument some time ago [1]:
>
>"When a person sends an email the person consents to the transmission
>of an
>    email address.  The email address is necessary for the recipient 
>of the email
>    to be able to reply to it."
>
>I cannot think of another way for the technology to work if, for 
>example, I do not include an email address for you to send me a 
>reply.  As I have not reviewed the S/MIME draft I prefer not to 
>comment about it.

I wasn't clear. While there are privacy issues at multiple levels with email, the bit I was referring to with the "Received" header comment was the point that, AFAIK (and I'm quoting from memory here) the specs for SMTP require even the IP address of the originating computer to be there amongst the received headers. (AFAIK, Gmail violates this.) This is very useful for diagnostics when something goes wrong, but is not needs for message delivery. 

The folks behind the LEAP.se project list out what they see as privacy flaws with email (but don't list the above problem iirc), as does Adam Langley, implicitly, in his long initial blog post introducing the Pond protocol. 

>There can be political ramifications to BGPSEC, the CA system, and 
>maybe even email.  It would require  a lot of people to identify the 
>political ramifications [2].  Let's say that some entity is created 
>for all that.  The open source people might have a higher barrier to 
>overcome [3].
>
>A well-written technical standard would have minimized political 
>ramifications to an extent that it is not worth bothering 
>about.  

This is the bit with which I disagree. You can't separate them out that way. The "political" aspect is not dependent only on how the standard is written, but also on the topic that the standard covers, the assumptions that go into the formulation, and other factors that I should probably spend some time analysing and categorizing when I get some time. 

I believe it's impossible to separate out politics from standards. Sure there will be some some standards that have less of a political implication than others and some will have no discernable political impact at all. But that wouldn't be because that particular standard is somehow better written. 

Having a unitary root (to have globally unique addresses, rather than leaving the resolution of address conflict to users by design), the design of DNSSEC (including key splitting), all of these are political decisions that are embedded in the current structure of standards and practices. 

There's no escaping the political question. Standards-setting is politics and cannot be rid of its political consequences. 

Cheers, 
Pranesh 

> There is still the intellectual property question.  Open 
>source people usually do not like technical standards which are 
>covered by patents.

>Regards,
>S. Moonesamy
>
>1. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moonesamy-privacy-identifiers-01
>2. There are a lot of technical specifications and different 
>organizations involved.
>3. There is already a high barrier as it is to stay involved. 

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

---

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2014 21:18:14 +0100

>  Internet" and then sit back and watch the fun...)

John,

there is also a difference of layers to consider. The internet and 
OSI pile have been influenced by the positions of the Telcos. Fadi 
Chehade has included them in the "family" for Sao Paulo. The real 
issue is what is the internet. If the internet is the end to end 
transport under IP, IETF standards are mandatory (otherwise is it not 
the Internet, it is something else). If ICANN is to insure the 
stability of the DNS class IN under contract of the NTIA, there is no 
objection that class UR is under contract of the Ruhitanian FCC. In 
this case why is ICANN alone to use its M$ 78 budget to represent 
VGNICs in Sao Paulo?

The problem is when someone wants to establish a radical monopoly 
(cf. Yvan Illitch) on something common, i.e. hampering the VN 
(virtual network, partial or global) of a national, trade, regional, 
private, personal relational space. Its NIC manager (to keep a 
generic traditional name) feels colonized and opposes.

The best to smooth this is to talk. But to talk you need to be two - 
this is what Russ did in authrozing the IUCG experimentation CS 
people are not using a lot as CS but that VGN people may want to use. 
We will see if ICANN subsidze VGNICS participations.

jfc

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2014 18:44:18 -0500

Hi,

> distant from the principle of "Standards are voluntarily adopted".

That feels like a pretty fast rhetorical move to me.  Nobody is saying
you must use any particular standard.  Moreover, since the Internet is
a network of networks, _by definition_ the partcipation in the
internetworking is voluntary.  If it were mandatory routing of packets
across all participating networks, it wouldn't be an internet at all;
it'd be one big network.  

> those use cases is indeed embedding certain social/economic values.

Yes, of course.  I agree with this.  When you make a choice in favour
or against some particular technology, you are thereby also making the
choince in favour or against at least some of its consequences.  I do
think we should make that choice thoughtfully and with awareness.

We better not left unsaid, however, that given some choices that have
been made already, we are not simply free to anything we like.  Many
seem to think that, because this is technology, one could just make a
rule to change the way it works.  But technology isn't like that: once
you have deployed a technology, it alters the world.  We might wish we
hadn't built North America with miles of highways, huge suburban
tracts, and 1.5+ hour commutes for many people; tough.  That's the
world we've actually got, and the only way it could change is with
massive social disruption.

> and economic principles) so that they'll support such an approach for 

I sure hope so.  Otherwise, we're wasting a lot of time, because
answer number 2 is IMO unlikely actually to work, if by "work" we mean
"deliver anything we can recognise as an internet".

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2014 18:52:09 -0500

> of requirements should be enlarged? Please correct me if I misunderstood

I am not one who especially believes that representativity is the
essential need, so getting the number or range of people -- "those who
participate" -- is to me much less important than getting the range of
views to take into consideration.  Often, people can be effective
advocates for a view they have, but sometimes people can be good
advocates for something even if they don't especially agree with it.
The key thing is to ensure that the different considerations -- for
example whether people will build or deploy a thing, whether it adds
positively to the networks, the kinds of uses to which it can be put,
and even whether it contributes to or detracts from various other
social values -- ought to be in the mix when figuring out how to
describe a problem.  This is why I think it is important especially
that public policy types and so on be solicited for feedback in the
run-up to a BoF or the chartering of a WG.  

I hope that makes it clearer.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Suzanne Woolf <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2014 19:07:15 -0500

On Mar 1, 2014, at 6:52 PM, Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]> wrote:

> views to take into consideration.  

This may even be the key distinction between the modes of decision-making most common and comfortable to the different constituencies/groups we're talking about. 

"Representativity" of constituents is neither necessary nor sufficient as far as I can tell for representation of the most essential and useful range of views. It is, however, often assumed and expected to be both.

> run-up to a BoF or the chartering of a WG.  

With that said, I think you're in agreement on the underlying point-- "the range….of those who participate in the definition of requirements should be enlarged." 

It becomes tricky (but not impossible) to define and measure whether a wider range of participants is contributing to different and better outcomes. 

Suzanne

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2014 22:55:12 -0800

Hi John,
>  recognize as drivers for particular protocol decisions.

[snip]

>  indeed encourage having a political discussion at the IETF.)

I have used non-technical references in some Internet-Drafts.  There 
is what I would describe as the social context.  It is very difficult 
to explain that.  There are the political issues.  These issues could 
be considered unimportant at the time the decision is taken.

There isn't a widely accepted statement on, for example, privacy 
which could be used as a good reference.  There is a view that 
encryption ensures privacy.  That draft looks at the problem from a 
security perspective as it is what people could understand. :-)

>with the IETF, and some documentation of same... e.g. an internet-draft.

It's not possible to evaluate that risk.  It shouldn't be a problem 
to have some documentation as long as it is not a blueprint.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 20:18:46 +1300

>> of requirements should be enlarged? Please correct me if I misunderstood

This is of course a fundmental reason why the IETF is open to
all particpants, including those who can't afford to travel.
We may be imperfect - we surely are - but in the end there is
nothing we can do about people who don't tell us about their
requirements.

There's always scope for more outreach but more rules than "anyone
can contribute" seem completely pointless.

    Brian

---

From: Andrea Glorioso <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 09:00:08 +0100

Brian,

> can contribute" seem completely pointless.

We might have a fundamental disagreement here. From my neck of the woods
and with experience in different constituencies, the rule you mention is a
necessary, but often not sufficient condition.

Andrea

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 08:01:23 +0000

> nothing we can do about people who don't tell us about their

I agree with this statement, but we should also recognize that there are
difficulties in engaging  only on mailing lists that we've been
discussing elsewhere.  Also, we can always do a better job to outreach
to others so that they know they can join in the fun.  ISOC has been
working hard on that, but the job doesn't just fall to them.

Eliot

---

From: Andrea Glorioso <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 09:36:12 +0100

Andrew,

This is helpful, but I still can't understand a logical step.

> views to take into consideration.

I suspect we might have a different understanding of the concept of
"representativity". Perhaps because of this, I can't well understand how
you would get the "range of views to take into consideration" without
enlarging the range of participants.

Best,

Andrea

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 04:02:26 -0500

> enlarging the range of participants.

Some think that there is an approximate 1:1 relationship between
people and a view.  I just don't believe that, because I know that I
myself am able to contemplate things from more than one point of view.
Often, in an area where I am sufficiently experienced, I can come up
with the entire problem statement on my own without polling anyone,
and it'll be close enough for the purposes of starting work.  This
does not rely on including more people, but rather on including more
points of view. 

I suppose one could say that this is implicitly "enlarging the range
of participants" by proxy: I happen to know a lot about certain areas,
so I can put myself in the other's shoes and get the problem statement
close enough that, at least in the early stages, it's possible to do
useful work.  That description makes me uncomfortable because of the
importance it places on people rather than premises, but if it makes
others happier I could live with it.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 22:07:47 +1300

Andrea,

> enlarging the range of participants.

You will really have to explain what range is larger than "anyone".

Sorry to appear abrupt but this discussion is as old as the hills
in IETF circles, and nobody has ever answered the question.

Given that anyone may participate, it's legitimate to ask how to
encourage wider participation but there is no need to change
any of the formalities (because there aren't any).

This argument does not, of course, apply to other SDOs that have
some kind of membership rules. I suspect that the IETF is close
to unique in this respect.

    Brian

    Brian

---

From: Andrea Glorioso <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 11:05:18 +0100

Brian,

> You will really have to explain what range is larger than "anyone".

So, any human being whose life is impacted by the technical decisions taken
(among other places) within the IETF can participate?

Even if s/he doesn't speak English?

Note that I'm not suggesting a regime of translation for the IETF. (Working
in the European Commission I'm well aware of the difficulties involved. I'm
also aware of the practical and symbolic advantages.)

Even if s/he doesn't have an Internet connection?

Even if s/he comes from a cultural background that makes it exceptionally
hard to adapt to the standard norms of behaviour within the IETF?

The IETF is actually much better than many other SDOs I'm aware of; but
let's just keep in mind that the notion of "anyone" is not as clear cut as
it might seem.

As I have also said many times on this list, there is a difference between
being open and being inclusive; or between the potential and the actual
involvement of a broader range of persons and views.

> in IETF circles, and nobody has ever answered the question.

Actually, the discussion on formal v practical conditions for active
participation in social groups is way older than the IETF. And while no
easy, universal answers to reducing the gap between formal and actual
breadth of participation exist, the assumption that mere "openness" is a
sufficient condition has been shown time and again to be, let's say,
optimistic.

> any of the formalities (because there aren't any).

I don't think anyone is asking this, but I'm not entirely sure what you
mean by "formalities" in this context.

Best,

Andrea

---

From: Andrea Glorioso <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 11:07:43 +0100

Andrew,

> does not rely on including more people, but rather on including more

Thanks. But at which point does this become an untested assumption that you
"know better" that other people with completely different expertise,
background, motivations, priorities etc?

Best,

Andrea

---

From: Suzanne Woolf <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 05:22:00 -0500

> across all participating networks, it wouldn't be an internet at all;

As may be, I think that John's point was along the lines that there can be significant social and economic pressures that can look a lot like an imperative to a government. "If your network doesn't enable access to content and applications currently available only via TCP/IP-based interconnection, your economic and social development as part of the rest of the world will be subject to serious negative impacts" is not a requirement to use any particular standard, but it's a pretty strong set of constraints in some pretty common circumstances.

> massive social disruption.

This is a critical point that we don't see raised much. IME people whose primary frame of reference is policy tend to think of technology as rather malleable, while people who start from engineering-based thinking tend to regard policy as arbitrary and engineering constructs as far more rigidly deterministic. Neither tends to systematically account for the impact of the others' choices.

We may have to settle for simply recognizing that both sets of constraints are complex and likely to evolve over time, which would still be a step forward.

Suzanne

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 23:54:41 +1300

Andrea,

Below...

> mean by "formalities" in this context.

On the contrary, I believe that the IETF has been asking itself this
for many years. In 1992 when I first showed up, it was still Europeans
who were having the difficulties you mention; after that it was Japanese
and Korean participants; more recently it has been (e.g.) Chinese
colleagues; there are still other regions to go. That's why we have things
like the ISOC fellowships, the newcomers mentoring program(me), an
IETF education team, and so on.

I say "formalities" because you seem to be asking for some kind of formal
change to fix these problems. I regard them as properties of human society
that we have to deal with pragmatically.

    Brian

---

From: Andrea Glorioso <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 12:16:07 +0100

Brian,

> IETF education team, and so on.

I'm not sure why you opened this passage with "on the contrary". I don't
think (and I didn't say) that the IETF hasn't done anything to ensure more
/ better / broader participation. I said that the debates on formal v real
inclusiveness and the ways / tools to achieve the latter are older than the
IETF. Whether people wants to consider different experiences in the broader
problem space is another question.

> that we have to deal with pragmatically.

I agree that dealing with these issues in a pragmatic manner (which doesn't
mean "purely reactive and ad hoc") is a good approach. We need first to
agree whether there is an issue at all, though. I'm not sure we do agree on
this.

Best,

Andrea

---

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 12:20:43 +0100

At 11:05 02/03/2014, Andrea Glorioso wrote:
>So, any human being whose life is impacted by the technical 
>decisions taken (among other places) within the IETF can participate?
>Note that I'm not suggesting a regime of translation for the IETF. 
>(Working in the European Commission I'm well aware of the 
>difficulties involved. I'm also aware of the practical and symbolic 
>advantages.)
>Even if s/he comes from a cultural background that makes it 
>exceptionally hard to adapt to the standard norms of behaviour within the IETF?
>The IETF is actually much better than many other SDOs I'm aware of; 
>but let's just keep in mind that the notion of "anyone" is not as 
>clear cut as it might seem.

These points are certainly correct. I have suffered from these 
difficulties due to language, to perspective (I am considering the 
network from a "cosmological" point of view where each user is the 
center of its own network), and to a different architectural culture. 
Nevertheless I always considered the IETF as a particular human 
successful achievement (aside of its deliverables). This is why I 
oppose(d?) to the OpenStand unballance, removing the existence of an 
ultimate referent (assumed by the IAB until now to the benefit of an 
unclear reading of markets economics). On another hand, OpenStand may 
be a step ahead if an MS referential practice develops. This would be 
another contribution of the IETF model.

Anyway, considering these points I pleaded for a way to welcome 
internet informed users (IUsers) out of tune with IETF practices or 
motivations, and permit them to contribute. I drafted a charter that 
the IETF chair reviewed (http://iucg.org/wiki/IUCG_Charter which 
should now be reviewed), the non-WG IUCG@IETF (informed users 
contributing group) mailing list was started, and a site was created 
along the expressed suggestions received. It was accepted that (1) 
people could contribute in their own language, in the hope that at 
least one person could report the debate in English/French, and (2) 
that English and French would be used for documenting. The interest 
was certainly the multilinguistics issues (as the cybernetics of 
languages) that initiators had positively faught for at the 
WG/IDNAbis, but more importantly the advantage of a multicultural 
thinking when adapting one single culture (IETF) deliverables to 
users of many cultures.

The fault is probably mine, but the result is very mitigated. I do 
not think the problem is the outreach capacity (there are around 60 
members on the list, so there could be some viral effect). Nor the 
momentum (different works inititated by IUCG members are developping 
in e-linguistic or VGNs). My evaluation is more a fundamental 
difference of motivation and technical layer between engineers and 
users. It is quite impossible to start a debate and keep it on the 
list: the debates become private (I have in parallel a French list 
with more than 200 people who could qualify as IUsers, politicians, 
R&D, academics, etc. where debate can be started/continued and 
sometimes sustained at high architectincal layers). However, most 
important imputs are by copied mails to small groups. I am in the 
process of trying to formalise this as "a center of expertise" to see 
if one can stabilize this kind of process among accepted peers.

My experience completes what Andrew Sullivan explained. People are 
not so much interested in being represented or in discussing details 
(they have their own business to mind). They are interested that 
their needs and contributions are defended. So, they want to make 
sure that a "champion" (or a "rod ligthning") represents them. One 
important point is that they do not mind the number (they do not 
believe in kings and votes either) they are interested in coherent 
pertinence with what they think, to check if they are consistently 
correct and then that good idea proceeds. However, they are not ready 
to fight for a technical opinion, they mostly demand a result they 
can adhere to because it makes sense (i.e. it works and look stable 
enough for them to learn it and build atop). On the countrary they 
are are ready to support very tough fights (via a competent champion) 
for ethical or anthropic motive (in the case of lang-tags saga, I was 
proposed several times a crowd budget for an IETF DoT [denial of thinking])

My 2 cents.
jfc

>As I have also said many times on this list, there is a difference 
>between being open and being inclusive; or between the potential and 
>the actual involvement of a broader range of persons and views.
>
>participation in social groups is way older than the IETF. And while 
>no easy, universal answers to reducing the gap between formal and 
>actual breadth of participation exist, the assumption that mere 
>"openness" is a sufficient condition has been shown time and again 
>to be, let's say, optimistic.
>
>I don't think anyone is asking this, but I'm not entirely sure what 
>you mean by "formalities" in this context.
>
>Best,
>
>Andrea

---

From: Andrea Glorioso <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 12:49:05 +0100

Dear Russ, dear all,

On Feb 26, 2014 2:30 PM, "Russ White" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> The internet standards system is not based on "market acceptance." While
> standards are ultimately judged by the market (just as GM foods will be,
for
> better or worse, because you ultimately can't _make_ people eat them),

Actually you can, since many people eat GM foods without realising they are
doing it. But let's not go too much off topic...

> "the
> market" doesn't design these standards. Engineers do. In a sense, then,
> there already is an "oversight committee," that looks after internet
> standards.

Sorry, but... "oversight" (your word, not mine) of what precisely?

> We aren't discussing total chaos verses government control here,
> we're discussing how governments should influence the standards process
that
> already exists. Let's not devolve into a false dichotomy.

I agree - but the dichotomy is certainly not proposed by the European
Commission, which is calling for broader, upstream, timely etc involvement
of *all* stakeholders.

> So what you seem to be saying is: "Governments should assess the political
> and social impact of technology choices, and have some way to input these
> impacts into the standards setting process." Can you verify this is what
you
> are saying, or correct my misunderstanding?

If you replace "Governments" with "all stakeholders" that's a reasonable
approximation of what the European Commission is saying.

> From an engineering perspective, the question that matters is where the
> rubber meets the road. What do you (or the commission), think this
> interaction will look like? More involvement from government stakeholders
in
> the process as it stands? Or an additional step someplace along the way to
> ensure any new protocol choices meet some sort of social standards setting
> (and by whom)? If this is what you're saying -- on what basis should
> governments evaluate the social and political impact of technologies? And
> how can governments have this sort of input without de facto overruling
any
> and all technical considerations, in the end?

It's not easy to answer your questions because you (wrongly) limit the
scope of the parties to be better involved, only to governments.

I'd also expect, IF there is agreement on the desirability of the goal
(which I'm not sure is there) THEN the persons with a better understanding
of the organisation (the IETF in this case - and no, I'm not using the term
"organisation" as a formal entity) would come up with some initial options.

But having said this - I'll try to follow up on this point separately, as
soon as possible.

> My answer is -- governments should influence the standards like everyone
> else does, through providing technical expertise and determining which
> standards are applicable to specific technical problems. Not through any
> form of "formal oversight."

Noted, although I don't see the European Commission proposing this.

> I don't see the value in adding some further layer to the
> standards process to get some form of government approval.

Again noted, and again I don't see the European Commission proposing this.

Andrea

PS: since you clearly meant the passage on "would be a pity if something
happened to the IETF" as a joke, I don't want to dwell too much on it or
make it bigger than it is. But please be aware that my family comes from
Sicily and I have first-hand experience of that kind of sentences being the
start of pain, misery and in certain cases death of innocent people. So I'm
not particularly thrilled when I see my sincere attempts at ensuring the
long-term sustainability of the Internet (with all possible disagreements
on the ways to do so) being framed in the way you did. I'm trying to be
liberal in what I accept, but I hope people will try to be conservative in
what they send.

---

From: Andrea Glorioso <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 12:56:41 +0100

Dear Russ, dear all,

On Feb 26, 2014 2:43 PM, "Russ White" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> But this is precisely where I'm confused. The two statements:
>
> "We don't want a formal process, just strengthening the ones that are
> already there."
>
> And
>
> "We want to create structured mechanisms to allow regular, early, and
truly
> inclusive upstream participation..."

First of all "we" (by which I assume you mean "the European Commission")
don't want to create anything by ourselves alone. We might not even have
any role besides raising the question and, if useful, participate in the
discussions.

In any case, I fail to see the contradiction.
IF processes to involve in a structured, upstream, etc manner *all*
stakeholders DO NOT exist, they should be created; IF  they DO exist but
are not performing well enough, they should be strengthened; IF they DO
exist and are already performing so well that nothing else is needed, then
don't do anything.

I'm aware many of the assessments above are inherently subjective and work
is needed to develop shared criteria, but I hope the logic is clear enough.

Best,

Andrea

---

From: "Russ White" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 07:30:13 -0500

> > The internet standards system is not based on "market acceptance."
> 

Sure, if you lie to people, you can get them to do anything you want. Since
the IETF is a transparent process, however, there's not much of a chance of
that here.

> Sorry, but... "oversight" (your word, not mine) of what precisely?

Internet standards within the IETF. The IETF, itself, has several layers of
oversight built in. There is a process of building a problem statement,
which leads to building use cases, which then lead to requirements, which
then lead to proposed standards, which are then discussed by a working group
over a long period of time, which then leads to approval/nonapproval  by a
pair of carefully chosen working group chairs, which then leads to
approval/disapproval by a pair of area directors chosen by a randomly
selected representative committee for their technical and organizational
skills, which then leads to approval/disapproval by the full set of area
directors and others, which leads to a discussion among another technical
committee that is carefully chosen, which then leads to a final call through
the entire IETF, and can lead to the discuss process or individual
objections which can be brought to the attention of the IETF at large and
discussed again, which finally leads to the publication of a draft that can
be modified through other drafts going through the same process, and
possible implementation (if the market decides), but cannot become a
"standard" until it is actually implemented on multiple platforms and proven
to interoperate.

So there are at least five or six layers where anyone -- _anyone_ -- can get
involved in the process. Any representative of any government can work in
the use cases or requirements space without even worrying about the
technical processes, and can then work in the final call space to raise
objections to any proposed standard. Other than showing various government
representatives how this process works, so they can jump into it, I don't
see how or why we need any sort of additional level of oversight and review.

The process is open. People should use it.

> Commission, which is calling for broader, upstream, timely etc involvement

Universities, operators (though not enough IHMO), vendors, and various
internet governance organizations are already represented within the IETF
process. The only "stakeholder," I see being mentioned as needing a larger
role is governments from a policy perspective (some governments are already
involved from a technical perspective through research and standards
organizations).

> > impacts into the standards setting process." Can you verify this is
> what you

Again, the only "stakeholder," I see being specifically mentioned is
governments. If you'd like to broaden the term, please feel free to provide
an actual example of someone other than a government, and more specifically,
someone who cannot participate in the process as it stands for some reason,
and you believe would provide valuable input.

> It's not easy to answer your questions because you (wrongly) limit the
scope
> of the parties to be better involved, only to governments.

Because governments are the only "stakeholder," mentioned to this point.

> I'd also expect, IF there is agreement on the desirability of the goal
(which
> I'm not sure is there) THEN the persons with a better understanding of the
> organisation (the IETF in this case - and no, I'm not using the term

Honestly, I don't see an actual goal on which to agree in anything you've
written so far. "We'd like to see all the stakeholders (undefined) to
somehow better participate (undefined) through an upstream process
(undefined) to better take policy (undefined) into account when writing
technical standards." There are too many "undefined" bits in there for me to
parse the actual proposal and determine if I agree with the goal or not.

What I'm trying to do is to get you to define the "undefined's," so we can
actually figure out what you're proposing in specific, concrete terms.
Without an actual proposal, or rather an actual goal, it's impossible to
agree or disagree. Again, I like to see the camel before letting the nose
in. In principle, the process is already open, so I don't understand what
problem is being addressed. The goal hasn't been stated -- to what end would
these undefined stakeholders like to participate in a way that isn't already
open to public participation? 

> Noted, although I don't see the European Commission proposing this.

Then what does "involving more stakeholders to ensure social policies are
correctly addressed," actually mean, from your (or the Commission's)
perspective? If social concerns are not meant to override technical ones, or
a consensus of government's view isn't meant to override technical
considerations, then what specific input will be made by these undefined
"stakeholders," and what sorts of undefined "policy results" are being
projected onto the process? 

> > I don't see the value in adding some further layer to the standards
> > process to get some form of government approval.
> 

Then what, precisely, is being proposed? To have more stakeholders involved,
but not having those stakeholders have any sort of say over the final
outcome? And if these government stakeholders do have more "involvement,"
then what would that involvement look like other than saying, "we don't
agree with this technical direction for social or political reasons, and
therefore we expect the IETF to redirect its technical efforts?"

> happened to the IETF" as a joke, I don't want to dwell too much on it or
make
> it bigger than it is. But please be aware that my family comes from Sicily
and I

Yes, it was a joke. But when someone says, "We need to do something before
the governments of the world decide to take matters into their own hands in
some other way," that's precisely the impression I get. I was trying to make
light of that impression, but I'm sorry if it has some sort of personal
connection for you.

Russ

---

From: "Russ White" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 07:42:43 -0500

> Thanks. But at which point does this become an untested assumption that
> you "know better" that other people with completely different expertise,

"And it'll be close enough for the purposes of a starting work."

That's the key point. There are many layers of discussion and vetting before
even the problem statement is taken as "final," and even then, most problem
statements are never taken as "complete," or "final," in the IETF context.
And all the discussion around acceptance or rejection of this "starting
point," is open to public view. There are no closed or classified meetings
here.

This process was designed to be as open and fair as possible, focused on
finding technical solutions to clearly defined problem sets. The process
must take into account the competitive nature of vendors, researchers, and
operators. What you seem to be saying is that it's not open to government
(or some other undefined stakeholder) participation. What I'd like to
understand is how and where, specifically, you think it's not, and what
specific proposal you'd like to make to change what you perceive as a
shortcoming.

:-)

Russ

---

From: Andrea Glorioso <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 14:26:26 +0100

Dear Russ, dear all,

first of all, I'd like to reiterate that we happen to be discussing the
IETF process because this is an IAB mailing list. But the Communication on
Internet Policy and Governance does *not* target specifically the IETF. It
is possible, as I think I already said, that among the various SDOs (and
more generally organisations / processes in which the Internet technical
community gathers and deliberates) the processes of the IETF are already
inclusive enough to take care of all necessary considerations, including
the social impact (to simplify) of technical choices. I do have myself some
doubts, on the basis of my own experience and of various conversations I
have had throughout the years (including, frankly, discussions within the
IETF itself).

So, having clarified this...

> The process is open. People should use it.

Although I agree that it would desirable if more people participated in the
process, and that there are no *formal* obstacles to such participation
(except perhaps the language, but I'm not sure you would consider that as a
"formal" obstacle) I don't think we'll ever get around to agreeing that
"openness" and "inclusiveness" are two different things. That's the basis
of the position of the European Commission. So we'll have to agree to
disagree on this point.

> involved from a technical perspective through research and standards

How many sociologists participate in IETF processes?
How many economists?
How many scholars of international private / public law?
How many psychologists?
How many human rights NGOs / activists?
How many philosophers?
How many anthropologists?

I could go on and on. And you will appreciate that none of the examples
above refer to "governments" (which is in and by itself a too generic
category, but that's stuff for another discussion I guess).

Perhaps the answer will be "plenty" (I'd love to see that!). And perhaps
the answer will be "we don't need these people to achieve the goals of the
IETF" (again, please note that I'm focusing on the IETF because this is an
IAB list, but it's not the purpose of the Commission to "single out" the
IETF in any way or form).

As I repeated multiple times, the answer "the process is open, so they
could participate if they wanted to" is from my perspective simplistic and
unsatisfactory. As I said, we'll probably have to agree to disagree on this
point.

> and you believe would provide valuable input.

Sorry, but "specifically mentioned" by whom? Certainly not by the European
Commission is its Communication on Internet Policy and Governance, as I
repeated many times. If people choose themselves to narrow the focus of the
conversation that's their choice.

> parse the actual proposal and determine if I agree with the goal or not.

Fair enough. I don't see why it is not possible to agree on the general
goal, but it is certainly necessary to develop the idea in more detail for
some people to engage in the conversation.

> open to public participation?

The view of the European Commission is that by making it easier for
different kinds of people to participate in the discussion, the end result
would be better - at the very least in the sense that it would have
analysed more "use cases" and assessed more in-depth the mid- and long-term
"operational considerations" of any particular IETF specification.

> projected onto the process?

Perhaps simply letting other IETF participants know that there are
different views out there?

Let me put it another way. If you were developing an IETF specification
which defines how "personal data" (or, to use the US term, "personally
identifiable information") should be shared between Internet hosts; and
that specification did not allow for the end-user to express his/her
consent to such sharing; would it help the drafters of the specification if
a privacy lawyer pointed out that in a very large number of jurisdictions
around the globe, this is probably going to make implementations of that
specification illegal?

I'm using on purpose a very simplistic example and I'm perfectly aware of
the existence of the IETF-privacy mailing list, as well as of the fact that
RFC normally include considerations related to privacy. I'm also aware that
not allowing a user to express his/her consent would probably be
incompatible with the end-to-end principle and other basic architectural /
design characteristics of the Internet. But I hope this helps understand
the logic. "Overriding" the technical concerns is not the only possible
result of a conversation.

> therefore we expect the IETF to redirect its technical efforts?"

Already making sure that such a statement can be made on the basis of a
proper debate would be an improvement over a situation in which no social,
legal, cultural or political consideration / reason is factored in.

Again, we can - and it seems to me, most certainly will - disagree whether
the current processes of the IETF are already "good enough" to allow this.
It happens.

Best,

---

From: Andrea Glorioso <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 14:33:50 +0100

Dear Russ,

I have the distinct impression that we are running in circles.

> point," is open to public view. There are no closed or classified meetings

I never said there was. I said that being open and ensuring inclusiveness
are two distinct things. I think the IETF is extremely open. I think the
IETF could do better in terms of inclusiveness of other perspectives,
although it is - in no small part thanks to its institutional design and
procedures - better than other SDOs I know.

Frankly, I'm not sure what else I can say on this without starting to sound
like a broken record.

> specific proposal you'd like to make to change what you perceive as a

I don't want this to become confrontational, but I don't like words being
put in my mouth. For the sake of my own understanding, could you please
point me at where I said that the process is not open to the participation
- as in, "you can participate if you want to" - of everyone?

Best,

---

From: "Russ White" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 08:53:18 -0500

> How many anthropologists?

Three points:

I would bet the numbers are higher than you suspect, because engineers tend
to be a very diverse bunch with a lot of "secondary" interests. In fact, in
some cases, engineering is their "secondary" interest. For instance, I have
a degree in theology as well as a degree in information technology, and I'm
currently pursuing a PhD in philosophy. I know of another person here who
has a "double masters" (MDiv) in theology, a PhD in organizational
management, and is pursuing a PhD in philosophy. I know of others who have
law degrees, and many who are small business owners, and... The IETF is a
rather diverse group -- there are few people here who have a sole interest
in engineering. I don't think it's so simple as "one person == one
perspective."

Beyond this, what specific things would any of these people, working purely
as economists, etc., bring to the table in building a technical standard? 

Finally, what's stopping them from participating today? Is it that they
don't understand the process? Is it that they don't understand the
importance of the process? If there's an education problem, then let's
address it, I'm game! For instance, I'm currently working with Pearson to
get a general overview of the operation of the Internet into a "video
mentor." I blog about the IETF constantly in various venues. We're trying to
keep the IPJ afloat because I believe it's a great educational platform and
an important part of the overall ecosystem. We're working on white papers,
etc., all the time...

I've no problem with putting energy into education. If you think there's a
specific place we should take this educational effort, I don't think anyone
here would object. We might be too busy individually to help with every
specific proposal, but I don't think anyone would say, "no, don't do that."
 
> As I repeated multiple times, the answer "the process is open, so they
could
> participate if they wanted to" is from my perspective simplistic and

Why is this an unsatisfactory answer, specifically? The only alternatives I
see are:

1. Make a special place for folks outside the engineering world to
participate, giving them some sort of "overriding veto" on the proceedings.
2. Educate folks on the importance of their participation. 

#1 I don't agree with.
#2 I've been trying to do for a long long time.

> Fair enough. I don't see why it is not possible to agree on the general
goal,
> but it is certainly necessary to develop the idea in more detail for some
> people to engage in the conversation.

In summary, because:

1. The processes are already open, and built around a multi-stakeholder
model
2. Given the process is already built this way, it's not enough to say, "the
IETF needs a more multi-staker holder model"

If the IETF were built on a narrow process designed to allow vendors only to
participate, then I would agree with you. As it is, the IETF isn't, so we
must go deeper than, "there's a problem that needs to be fixed," when the
only definition of the problem I see already agrees with the operating
principles of the IETF.

> The view of the European Commission is that by making it easier for
different
> kinds of people to participate in the discussion, the end result would be
> better - at the very least in the sense that it would have analysed more
"use
> cases" and assessed more in-depth the mid- and long-term "operational
> considerations" of any particular IETF specification.

Can you point to a specific instance where the IETF has not made it easy for
people of any sort to participate? Again, I, personally, reach out to many
folks on a regular basis attempting to bring more people into the process.
There is a constant drive to get enterprise operators into the IETF. I,
personally, wish someone other than the US government were deeply involved
in some specific working groups, as well, as I think the narrow range of use
cases is driving a technically unsound solution.

But I can't force people. And I don't see how the process can be changed in
any way that would not end up ultimately damaging the technical excellence
of the final product, nor simply inject more politics into the process than
already exists. 

> Perhaps simply letting other IETF participants know that there are
different
> views out there?

Education is always a good thing. 

> Let me put it another way. If you were developing an IETF specification
which
> defines how "personal data" (or, to use the US term, "personally
identifiable
> information") should be shared between Internet hosts; and that
> specification did not allow for the end-user to express his/her consent to
> such sharing; would it help the drafters of the specification if a privacy
lawyer
> pointed out that in a very large number of jurisdictions around the globe,
this
> is probably going to make implementations of that specification illegal?

Yes, it would. But there's nothing stopping lawyers (and there are some in
the IETF community who hold law degrees) from making such a point.

the
> current processes of the IETF are already "good enough" to allow this. It
> happens.

Sure, but putting more processes into place isn't going to stop it from
happening in the future. The most the IETF can do is to be as open and
transparent as possible, and make the process open to as wide of
participation as possible. Most of the work here is done "on list," rather
than "in meetings," and the IETF intentionally tries to space meetings such
that the cost and work of going to a meeting is spread as evenly as
possible. It's the most "open" organization I know of. If anyone has more
specific suggestions, I'm certain we're all open to at least discussing
them.

:-)

Russ

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 08:55:52 -0500

> How many philosophers?

On this particular question, the answer is, "More than you'd think."

On a more serious note, though, why do you think that philosophers or
sociologists or biochemists needs to _participate_ for the relevant
point of view/considerations to be included in the requirements for
protocol development?  This is the point I've been trying to make
upthread.  All people willing to contribute to standardization are
somehow interested in the deployment and therefore the utility of the
resulting standard.  Therefore, they have an important incentive to go
and find out those interests and integrate them in the requirements
for what they're working on.

Can various SDOs do a better job at this?  Sure.  I think the IETF can
do a better job at it for sure.  But I am not convinced that the
answer to this is to go out and find representative samples of all
possible users in the world and survey them, or get them to join IETF
mailing lists or something like that.  That would almost certainly be
as great a waste of time as having automotive engineers ask drivers
whether they want the shape of the camshaft changed.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: John Curran <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 09:07:10 -0500

On Mar 2, 2014, at 8:53 AM, Russ White <[email-masked]> wrote:

> The most the IETF can do is to be as open and
> participation as possible.

That is not "the most the IETF can do"; it can also recognize that at least 
one community of stakeholders (governments) might need particular outreach
on how to work with the IETF in a collaborative manner.  One can claim that
stakeholders are all the same, but a community of stakeholders that has the
ability to proscribe/legislate particular outcomes (which may not even be 
technically viable) warrants some additional help and attention on how to 
engage on the exact same process as all other IETF participants.

> Most of the work here is done "on list," rather

Specific suggestions have been made - see attached.
/John

===

Russ - 

FYI,
/John

---

From: Andrea Glorioso <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 15:21:30 +0100

Dear Andrew,

> On this particular question, the answer is, "More than you'd think."

Possibly - it would be nice if there were some data.

> for what they're working on.

So, what you are saying is that the IETF works best in a "pull" mode
(where those who work on specifications go out and ask different folks
from various paths of life how to integrate their concerns in the
specifications) rather than in a "push" mode (where said folks make
sure their perspectives are known as early as possible in the process).

Do I understand you correctly?

> whether they want the shape of the camshaft changed.

I don't know much about cars, so I apologise if the question is stupid.
But would the shape of the camshaft have an impact on the way in which
drivers "experience" their car (how easy is it to use it, how long it can
stay without going to the mechanic, etc)? If so, I think automotive
engineers should actually ask drivers.

Best,

Andrea

---

From: Andrea Glorioso <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 15:26:24 +0100

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Russ White <[email-masked]> wrote:

> to be a very diverse bunch with a lot of "secondary" interests.

Do we have any kind of data? The only source I am aware of is Jari's
"Document Statistics" page (http://www.arkko.com/tools/docstats.html).

> as economists, etc., bring to the table in building a technical standard?

Uhm... for example, help in assessing / modelling the economic impact of a
technical standard?

> only definition of the problem I see already agrees with the operating

But the thing is - the Commission is not saying that there is a problem that
needs to be fixed with the IETF. I might have my personal opinion, but
that's
a different matter.

As I wrote elsewhere - if the IETF community concludes that there is no
problem at all in terms of inclusiveness and early engagement, fine. I
don't agree and I don't think it's going to help the Internet in the
long-term,
but hey - we have no power to tell IETF people what to do (and even if
we had, I somehow doubt we'd use it, but I'm sure you'll be to disagree on
this point).

> of the final product, nor simply inject more politics into the process than

I'm curious - what's your definition of "politics"?

Best,

Andrea

---

From: John Curran <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 09:47:02 -0500

On Mar 2, 2014, at 8:55 AM, Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]> wrote:
> That would almost certainly be

What might not be a waste of time is when the automotive companies note to 
governments (who assert to be representative the interests of their people) 
that it would be quite a bit easier for everyone to the extent that there are 
more shared goals among many of them regarding fuel efficiency and emissions,
so that the automotive engineers don't have to quite as many different engines 
and exhaust systems solely to comply with diverse requirements when presented 
uncoordinated and after the fact... 

The auto companies may or may not decide to consider the input received (after 
all, they are just suggestions at that point) but it is probably still helpful 
to know what these expectations.

FYI,
/John

Disclaimer:  My views alone - no automobile companies were consulted in writing
             this email.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 09:56:26 -0500

> Possibly - it would be nice if there were some data.

I know half a dozen people who have been or are currently on the IAB
or IESG and who have either undergraduate or graduate degrees in
philosophy, just off the top of my head.  But I don't actually think
it _would_ be nice if there were some data.  You seem to have an
essentialist view about identity, and I don't.

> Do I understand you correctly?

It appears not, but I don't know what more to say than what I've
already said to make myself clearer.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Andrea Glorioso <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 16:12:03 +0100

> essentialist view about identity, and I don't.

I don't think my or your view about identity are the point here. If
people tell me that there are folks with plenty of expertise in X
(for various values of X) within the IETF, it seems just normal to
ask "how do we know that" (considering that not everyone is familiar
with the past or present membership of the IAB or the IESG, which
by the way are not the IETF as you know much better than me).

(This is also the first time when discussing in an *engineering*
environment where "having data" is not considered a priority).

> already said to make myself clearer.

Pity, but I understand the feeling.

Best,

Andrea

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 2 Mar 2014 16:49:11 -0000

>hard to adapt to the standard norms of behaviour within the IETF?

If she's sufficiently motivated, yes.

We're not claiming that there is no effort required to participate in
the IETF.  We are saying that there the IETF doesn't have any
institutional barriers beyond the reality that the work happens in
English via e-mail.

R's,
John

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 14:12:53 -0800

No Hat.

My two beads worth is that three decades ago, when Jon Postel wanted to 
respond to the growth of registrations, Jon erred in missing the fact 
that network prefixes associated with urban areas provided addresses to 
the overwhelming majority of resources associated with persistent 
mnemonics. I discussed with Jon the absence of accommodation in 
iso3166-1 for stateless populations directly after the publication of 
rfc1591, and I too erred in not realizing that urban density offered an 
alternative to territorial jurisdiction when attempting to scale the 
"assignments czar" functions to the decline in network adapter prices.

Overlooking the vested interest of the then-monopoly dns operator, now 
merely the operator with 85% market share, it is difficult to find a 
rational interest in the policy of restricting access by stateless 
populations to the US DoC root. The responsibility for this policy 
appears to lie squarely with "government". While I spoke with Jon, and 
others spoke with Michael St. Johns, and our concerns were partially 
addressed by the addition of the NSN SLD to the US ccTLD, the concerns 
of Catalan speakers were not addressed until 2004, and the concerns of 
some autonomous regions, chiefly in Europe, have only just been 
addressed, at exceptional fee and contractual encumbrances, the concerns 
of populations such as the European Rom and European speakers of Yiddish 
and Arabic remain frustrated by the exclusive access claims of national 
governments.

So, every request by government(s), of cities, urban agglomerations, of 
indigenous polities, linguistic and cultural communities, even iso3166-3 
regions, for access, as public governments to the US DoC root, present a 
problem in "internet governance" created by "government" and maintained 
to the present by "governments". It would be nice if government fixed 
this government-caused problem in "internet governance" by recourse to 
less absurd means than tasking a private contractor to treat these as 
speculative, for-profit exploits.

Now the second bead.

The "how many {sociologists,...} participate in IETF processes?" laundry 
list manages to miss one area of work by "governments" which might have, 
and still may, inform the IETF.  Governments have been quite successful 
in establishing language encoding standards in which text data is 
created, transmitted, and stored. One government, and its contractor, 
chose one national standard for all text-associated network addressable 
resources, restricting script choices to US-ASCII, and encodings over 
US-ASCII, for glyphs present in a repertoire produced by an consortium 
of printer vendors. At no point in time have "governments" initiated 
work necessary to reconcile multiple, diverse character set standards, 
with a single resource location mechanism, nor has the IRTF followed up 
on the recommendation of the IAB Character Set Workshop of April, 1997, 
"to create a research group to explore the open issues of character sets 
on the Internet ".

The observation has been made frequently, and by many, that language is 
an "internet governance" issue, and in fact, the need for correct 
resolution of resources "named" in the Han script, encoded in UTF-8, 
lead to the illumination of a second root server constellation, leading 
immediately to a consistency of publications problem -- a first order 
problem in "internet governance", yet both "governments" and "the 
technical community" treat this as a solved problem, overlooking the 
distinction between the corpus of text associated with resources, and 
the corpora of texts which comprise text resources.

 From my perspective there are actual failures of both "government" and 
"the technical community" to conduct "internet governance" effectively, 
for which remedial work would be of measurable utility.

Eric Brunner-Williams
Eugene, Oregon
former-hats=={sri, .biz/.us co-author, .cat co-author, cto core, primary 
author, xpg1, xpg4.2 (single unix standard), {solaris|hp-ux} i18n/l10n 
implementor, etc.}

---

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 23:37:01 +0100

At 17:49 02/03/2014, John Levine wrote:
>  the IETF doesn't have any institutional barriers beyond the 
> reality that the work happens in English

what does not require English mother tongue participants to be fluent 
in another language, depriving them from an experience which might be 
necessary when having to standardize a networking architecture for a 
multilingual and multicultural world. An impact? the lack of 
presentation layer six in the internet architecture (probably an 
advantage as its implementation now will be on the fringe, but this 
lead to the "status quo" strategies and innovation delays).
jfc

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 18:42:23 +0100

At 23:12 02/03/2014, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
>My two beads worth is that three decades ago, when Jon Postel wanted 
>to respond to the growth of registrations, Jon erred in missing the 
>fact that network prefixes associated with urban areas provided 
>addresses to the overwhelming majority of resources associated with 
>persistent mnemonics.

Eric,

I deeply agree with your two beads.

We made the choice of ISO 3166-1 in 1978 because in 1978 the 
international communications world was made of monopolies. 
Domestically, it was made of cities, the economic/communicational 
importance of which was measured by the capacity to sustain the 
return on the investment of an access point. We then turned the world 
into the *additional* capacity of X121, which is attached to the 
legal topology of the networks (DNICs) while monopolies started being 
transferred to local law. When, in 1983, the internet was created, 
the DNS permitted 35,635 different visions of the catenet 
internetting project (Classes). This accommodated one vision per 
government and many visions by kind of populations, trades, cultures, 
languages, cities, urban agglomerations, indigenous polities, 
linguistic and cultural communities, even iso3166-3 regions and 
within that vision by as many units as you could wish (TLDs).

This was culturally opposed by the IETF monolectic culture. This 
confused the US point of view (of the IP internetting project of the 
catenet) with a single unique  "technically correct" perspective. 
This restricted the whole digisphere catenet to the sole ICANN/NTIA 
"IN" Class, the NICs to the sole INTERNIC, and the world to a single 
Virtual Global Network. This is what one calls "the BUG" for "being 
unipolarly global".

The blessing of that BUG is that it is not in the technology, but 
rather in some people minds. It is not in the technology because it 
is not in the internet project of Vint Cerf (EIN 48). It is actually 
an opposition to the completion of the EIN 48 that has two 
motivations: the proof of the catenet concept and the capacity for 
the resulting internetting to be transparent (and, therefore, 
neutral) to other communication technologies.

The most used communication technology is human languages, then trade 
jargons, etc.

>Now the second bead.
>
>The "how many {sociologists,...} participate in IETF processes?" 
>laundry list manages to miss one area of work by "governments" which 
>might have, and still may, inform the IETF.  Governments have been 
>quite successful in establishing language encoding standards in 
>which text data is created, transmitted, and stored. One government, 
>and its contractor, chose one national standard for all 
>text-associated network addressable resources, restricting script 
>choices to US-ASCII, and encodings over US-ASCII, for glyphs present 
>in a repertoire produced by an consortium of printer vendors. At no 
>point in time have "governments" initiated work necessary to 
>reconcile multiple, diverse character set standards, with a single 
>resource location mechanism, nor has the IRTF followed up on the 
>recommendation of the IAB Character Set Workshop of April, 1997, "to 
>create a research group to explore the open issues of character sets 
>on the Internet ".

That character set exists.

It is ISO 10646. Its maintenance agency is Unicode. This works pretty 
well except at the IETF where it now nearly works pretty well due to 
Vint Cerf (Chair of the WG/IDNAbis), Patrik Falsftöm, and John Klensin.

The IETF difficulty results again from the BUG that nearly blocked 
IDNA2008 until Pete Resnick and Paul Hoffmann came with an IETF 
worded response to our French language related opposition. French 
language is a typical representative of the need, in a 
non-typographic context, of non-ISO 10646 supported orthotypographic 
features. Their RFC 5895 permitted the WG/IDNAbis consensus, but it 
was only accepted by the IESG as a private contribution for information.

>The observation has been made frequently, and by many, that language 
>is an "internet governance" issue, and in fact, the need for correct 
>lead to the illumination of a second root server constellation, 
>leading immediately to a consistency of publications problem -- a 
>first order problem in "internet governance", yet both "governments" 
>and "the technical community" treat this as a solved problem, 
>overlooking the distinction between the corpus of text associated 
>with resources, and the corpora of texts which comprise text resources.

The problem is the BUG, i.e. the supposed monopolarity of the 
quasi-infinitely multipolar name spaces (the DNS is not the sole 
naming system).

> From my perspective there are actual failures of both "government" 
> and "the technical community" to conduct "internet governance" 
> effectively, for which remedial work would be of measurable utility.

Yes and no.

They are delayed in understanding and implementing the Vint Cerf EIN 
48 project. Its first motivation has been met by the US Government 
that sponsored it. There is a global internetting of the world's 
catenet. The network of the networks.

Now, the technical community must understand how it actually *has* 
fully addressed the second motivation; and the governments, the 
industry, the academics, and informed users must be given the 
technical "go-ahead" to use it. For the virtual networks of the 
network of networks.

This is a big issue and a big responsibility because it might lead to 
a total mess if, when opening the throttle of the full implementation 
of the IETF technology, it does not work. So, concerned leaders did 
three things:

- the first thing IAB and IETF completed was to assemble together 
with ISOC, IEEE, and W3C.

- then they delegated the ultimate responsibility to the economy (not 
them, not the governments) through the OpenStand paradigmatic 
statement. I appealed RFC 6852 because the IESG did not inform the 
community of the real nature of the decision. Then, I appealed the 
IAB for relinquishing its responsibilities of the ultimate referent. 
I, this way, prepared an appeal for the ISOC in order to force it to 
be that referent, at least one time: to tell who was the referent of 
the OpenStand, or to open this digital global governance issue. Who 
ultilmately addresses technical conflicts?

- the ICANN also wished to relinquish its responsibilities in the 
possible fiasco and dilute them in a "globalization" - whatever it 
may mean as long as it is solemnly sponsored by Governments. They 
joined the technology leaders in Montevideo and transfered the 
problem to Govs, to be discussed in Sao Paulo. The appealing 
proposition, for everyone to discuss it, is that the decision is made 
on an undefined MS basis.

The problem is that being authorized by the IETF, ICANN, or Govs or 
not,  the throttle is leaking. It must be progressively opened before 
it blows-up. This has to be made in order, as per the IETF proven 
experience of testing running codes.

In order to provoke it, I chose one limited and progressive way (that 
can develop by itself, if it works; and prevent false hopes in an 
ambitious project, if it does not). This is the "HomeRoot", fringe to 
fringe layer, experimentation project based upon the VGN concept. It 
will lead to a polycratic experimental decision, to be documented at 
the proper layer SDO if it was adopted.

- HomeRoot means that participating users will use and exchange their 
own root data, from their exploration of the Classes' top zones.
- fringe to fringe means that end to end IETF technology will be 100% 
respected and used as per RFC 1958 (at the fringe) and RFC 5895 (on 
the user side).
- VGN means that every participating user will consider the global 
catenet as its own virtual global space through his personal NIC (the 
same way as Govs are to deal with their digital space sovereignty) 
participating in the catenet global metadata registry system (MDRS)
- polycracy means the effective globalization of the MS decision 
emergence by mutual information and individual decisions.
- the proper layer (fringe) is the presentation layer six in OSI 
terms. However, the lack of an Internet presentation layer in its 
initial phase turns out to be a wise approach, as it happens that a 
presentation layer on the user side (PLUS) at an intelligent use 
interface (IUI) under the user's computer assisted supervision can be 
far more secure, rewarding, and robust. To concert those issues 
between users and IETF participants is the IUCG@IETF non-WG purpose.

This represents, therefore, the experimentation of a progressive 
possible shift (under the terms of the ICANN ICP-3 currently 
effective policy) from a limited set of VGNICs (mainly ICANN, China, 
ORSN) to an emergence of many of them. Such a possible emergence 
souhld (as per the WSIS resolutions) be discussed at the IGF (and 
possibly multilaterally among Telcos and Govs (Sao Paulo)  as part of 
their patch of the WCIT Dubai disagreement).

The VGNICS (<http://vgnics.net/>http://vgnics.net) perspective is, 
therefore, in line with subsidiarity/substitution to be used to 
address the diversity in the RFC 5895 response. There is no 
centralized responsibility to take, no solemn decision in order to 
open the throttle: this has been already decided. The interest to 
participate or pursue is not to be multilaterally or 
multistakeholderly sustained: in a people centered desired 
information society (Geneva declaration) people will decide if they 
are interested. Everyone, Gov, corporate, CS NGO, individual user is 
welcome to help, consider and deploy the supervision of his/her/its 
own VGN. And see if it works, and if he/she/it is pleased with it or not.

The current idea, based upon the past community dot-root project (as 
per ICP-3), the description of the ORSN experience, and the Chinese 
solution leads to focus on five proposed initial steps, as seen from 
the complementary point of view of a VGN manager:

1. EzoP (exploration des zones primaires/exploration of the top zones)

2. HomeRoot (documentation of the implementation of a local 
resolution capacity based on the EZoP outputs).

3. MDRS (extended IANA information, adapted to each kind of VGN, for 
the organization of VGNICs)

4. I*Book (consolidation of the RFCs and other standards to give VGN 
administrators, operators and developers a maintained common 
reference and training book).

5. Netix (an integrated network oriented Posix commands extension) 
for InterPLUS (inter+) operations and interapplications development.

Last but not the least, the VGN concept addresses the accountability 
issue in a polycratic manner: users will be able to select their 
VGNIC on a competition basis, along with the ICANN by-laws, and the 
OpenStand principles.

jfc

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 12:03:42 -0800

> I deeply agree with your two beads. 

i doubt it.

---

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 21:29:13 +0100

>>I deeply agree with your two beads.

I am sur we agree on symptom, probably not on the diagnosys, and 
aparently not on the prescription.
Future of the patient will tell.
jfc