Re: Of governments and representation (was: Montevideo Statement)

[Harald Alvestrand]

For what it's worth, I think Russ and Jari did the right thing in 
signing the statement the way they did, at the time they did it, with 
the prior consultation they did.


I was not consulted. And I'm glad they are capable of acting at this 
level without consulting me.




On 10/11/2013 06:02 PM, John Curran wrote:

Folks -

As a result of the Internet's growing social and economic importance, the 
underlying
Internet structures are receiving an increasing level of attention by both 
governments
and civil society.  The recent revelations regarding US government surveillance 
of
the Internet are now greatly accelerating government attention on all of the 
Internet
institutions, the IETF included.  All of this attention is likely bring about 
significant
changes in the Internet ecosystem, potentially including how the IETF interacts 
with
governments, civil society, and other Internet organizations globally.

In my personal view, it is a very important for the IETF to select leadership 
who can
participate in any discussions that occur, and it would further be prudent for 
the IETF
leaders to be granted a sufficient level of support by the community to take 
positions
in those discussions and make related statements, to the extent the positions 
and
the statements are aligned with established IETF positions and/or philosophy.

The most interesting part of the myriad of Internet Governance discussions is 
that
multiple organizations are all pushing ahead independently from one another, 
which
results in a very dynamic situation where we often don't even know that there 
will be
a conference or meeting until after its announced, do not know auspices under 
which
it will be held, nor what the scope of the discussions held will ultimately be. 
 However,
the failure of any of the Internet organizations to participate will not 
actually prevent
consideration of a variety of unique and colorful proposals for improving the 
Internet
and/or the IETF, nor will it preclude adoption even in the absence of IETF 
input...

The IETF is a very important Internet institution, and it deserves to be 
represented
in any discussions which might propose changes to the fundamental mechanisms of
Internet cooperation.  It would be a wonderful world indeed if all of these 
discussions
started with submission of an Internet Draft and discussion on open mailing 
lis, but
that hasn't been the modus operandi of governments and is probably too much to
realistically expect.

/John

Re: Of governments and representation (was: Montevideo Statement)

[Jorge Amodio]

There is an important difference between policy and politics. Promoting a
politics discussion within the IETF arena will become the demise of the
IETF.

-J


On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:

>
> It is clear to me that the IETF cannot be away from Internet
> Governance
> discussions. Yes, it is politics and we do not like politics, but that
> is the way the Internet is these days.
>
> It is also appears that we do not have consensus of how to
> participate
> and what to say in those discussions (I do not mind the way it is today
> but it seems that some folk -and I understand them- prefer other ways).
>
> Inevitably, as John said we are in times of change and we need to
> figure out how to interact with other Internet ecosystem organizations,
> we like or not.
>
> By means of our current bodies (IAB, IESG), individual submissions
> or
> working groups we need to find a way to what say, where, and how.
>
> Regards,
> as
>
>
> On 10/11/13 5:29 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > Hi John,
> >
> > On 12/10/2013 05:02, John Curran wrote:
> > ...
> >> In my personal view, it is a very important for the IETF to select
> leadership who can
> >> participate in any discussions that occur,
> >
> > Without obsessing about the word "leadership", but following up on a
> comment
> > made by Noel Chiappa on the "leader statements" thread, I think we have
> > to recognise that nothing in the NomCom process, the IAB Charter, or
> > the IESG Charter, would cause us to select IAB or IETF Chairs who are
> > particularly suited to this role.
> >
> > In fact I think that the plan of record is to leave such matters to
> > ISOC.
> >
> > Reality is different - the outside world expects to hear from us.
> >
> >  Brian
> >
>

Re: Of governments and representation (was: Montevideo Statement)

[Jorge Amodio]

The problem is not what actually each person said but what "they" say it was 
said and gets recorded into a statement that has no weight and it is not 
representative of the entire community.


-Jorge

> On Oct 12, 2013, at 7:23 AM, Stephen Farrell  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hiya,
> 
>> On 10/12/2013 01:02 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>> 
>> The thing is that I (and I suspect much of the IETF) feel that such I*
>> leadership attendees need to make it _very_ clear at such events that they 
>> are
>> there to present (as best they can) the views of the IETF as a whole, but 
>> they
>> cannot _commit_ the IETF to anything: only the IETF acting as a whole can do
>> that.
> 
> So fwiw I was there as Jari's sidekick-de-jour and I can confirm
> that both Jari and Russ repeatedly made it clear that anything
> substantive needed IETF community consensus. I realise that's not
> as good as a recording or set of minutes, but there ya go.
> 
> Cheers,
> S.

Re: Of governments and representation (was: Montevideo Statement)

[Dave Crocker]

On 10/13/2013 1:02 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:

 > From: Brian E Carpenter 

 > Reality is different - the outside world expects to hear from us.

I would guess that nobody (almost nobody?)in the IETF objects to I*
leadership representing our views at such things;


For at least one of the items in the signed statement, there is no basis 
for claiming to know what the IETF's views are.


When the IETF's views are clear, then of course having folks accurately 
represent those views publicly is dandy.




The thing is that I (and I suspect much of the IETF) feel that such I*
leadership attendees need to make it _very_ clear at such events that they are
there to present (as best they can) the views of the IETF as a whole, but they
cannot _commit_ the IETF to anything: only the IETF acting as a whole can do
that.


Here's where reality runs over theory.  For mass-market public 
statements, such nuance is entirely lost.  It is therefore misguided to 
believe that careful qualification will alter what is perceived by the 
public.


Lest anyone dismiss this concern with something along the lines of "we 
can't be responsible for other people's failure to listen carefully," 
I'll note that proactively anticipating and dealing with such likely 
failures is exactly the responsibility of anyone claiming to speak for 
an organization publicly.


There's even professional media relations training typically given to 
executives, for just this purpose.




So, for instance, in signing a statement, they need to say "John Smith,
current Ixx chair, signing as an individual", or something like that - to make
it clear to readers that their signature does not bind the organization as a
whole.


Yeah, but the likely benefit of that isn't very high, given the strong 
predilection some folk have for stoking the political fires when the 
topic is already highly politicized.  For example:



http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/10/11/the-core-internet-institutions-abandon-the-us-government/ 



Again, the nature of playing in such a sandbox -- as the Montevideo 
Statement attempts to do -- requires robust effort both to be accurate 
in what is said, but also to protect against misinterpretation.


Montevideo Statement seems to have accomplished neither.

d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

Re: Of governments and representation (was: Montevideo Statement)

[Arturo Servin]

It is clear to me that the IETF cannot be away from Internet Governance
discussions. Yes, it is politics and we do not like politics, but that
is the way the Internet is these days.

It is also appears that we do not have consensus of how to participate
and what to say in those discussions (I do not mind the way it is today
but it seems that some folk -and I understand them- prefer other ways).

Inevitably, as John said we are in times of change and we need to
figure out how to interact with other Internet ecosystem organizations,
we like or not.

By means of our current bodies (IAB, IESG), individual submissions or
working groups we need to find a way to what say, where, and how.

Regards,
as


On 10/11/13 5:29 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Hi John,
> 
> On 12/10/2013 05:02, John Curran wrote:
> ...
>> In my personal view, it is a very important for the IETF to select 
>> leadership who can
>> participate in any discussions that occur,
> 
> Without obsessing about the word "leadership", but following up on a comment
> made by Noel Chiappa on the "leader statements" thread, I think we have
> to recognise that nothing in the NomCom process, the IAB Charter, or
> the IESG Charter, would cause us to select IAB or IETF Chairs who are
> particularly suited to this role.
> 
> In fact I think that the plan of record is to leave such matters to
> ISOC.
> 
> Reality is different - the outside world expects to hear from us.
> 
>  Brian
> 

Re: Of governments and representation (was: Montevideo Statement)

[Stephen Farrell]

Hiya,

On 10/12/2013 01:02 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:

> The thing is that I (and I suspect much of the IETF) feel that such I*
> leadership attendees need to make it _very_ clear at such events that they are
> there to present (as best they can) the views of the IETF as a whole, but they
> cannot _commit_ the IETF to anything: only the IETF acting as a whole can do
> that.

So fwiw I was there as Jari's sidekick-de-jour and I can confirm
that both Jari and Russ repeatedly made it clear that anything
substantive needed IETF community consensus. I realise that's not
as good as a recording or set of minutes, but there ya go.

Cheers,
S.

Re: Of governments and representation (was: Montevideo Statement)

[Noel Chiappa]

> From: Brian E Carpenter 

> Reality is different - the outside world expects to hear from us.

I would guess that nobody (almost nobody?)in the IETF objects to I*
leadership representing our views at such things; in fact, I suspect most of
us would find it positively very desirable for the I* to be represented
there. (I certainly do.)

The thing is that I (and I suspect much of the IETF) feel that such I*
leadership attendees need to make it _very_ clear at such events that they are
there to present (as best they can) the views of the IETF as a whole, but they
cannot _commit_ the IETF to anything: only the IETF acting as a whole can do
that.

So, for instance, in signing a statement, they need to say "John Smith,
current Ixx chair, signing as an individual", or something like that - to make
it clear to readers that their signature does not bind the organization as a
whole.

Noel

Re: Of governments and representation (was: Montevideo Statement)

[Jorge Amodio]

Thank you for your frank and honest response John.

-Jorge

> On Oct 11, 2013, at 3:18 PM, John Curran  wrote:
> 
>> On Oct 11, 2013, at 9:32 AM, Jorge Amodio  wrote:
>> 
>> Just to start, there is no clear consensus of what "Internet Governance" 
>> means and entails.
> 
> You are correct.  The term "Internet Governance" is a term of art, and a poor 
> one
> at that.  It is the term that governments like to use, and in fact, in 2005 
> several of 
> them got together at the United Nations-initiated World Summit on the 
> Information 
> Society (WSIS) and came up with the following definition:
> 
> "Internet governance is the development and application by Governments, the 
> private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared 
> principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that 
> shape the evolution and use of the Internet."  
> 
> 
> I happen to hate the term "Internet Governance", but its use has become a 
> common 
> as shorthand for the discussions of governments expressing their needs and 
> desires 
> with respect to the Internet, its related institutions, and civil society.
> 
> It might not be necessary for the IETF to be involved (if it so chooses), but 
> I'm not
> certain that leaving it to ISOC would make sense if/when the discussion moves 
> into 
> areas such as structures for managing delegated registries of IETF-defined 
> protocols
> (i.e. protocols, names, numbers)
> 
>> In your particular case as President and CEO of ARIN, clearly you "lead" 
>> that organization but it does not make you representative of the Internet or 
>> its users. I can't find anywhere in the Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation 
>> of ARIN the word "Governance."
>> 
>> Nobody will deny any of the alleged "leaders" to participate in any meeting, 
>> conference, event, in their individual capacities, but NONE has any 
>> representation of the whole Internet.
> 
> Full agreement there...  No one has any representation of the entire 
> Internet, and 
> we should oppose the establishment of any structures that might aspire to 
> such.
> 
>> Do we really want to create a "government" for the Internet ? How do you 
>> propose to select people to be representatives for all the sectors ?
> 
> I do not, and expect others on this list feel the same.  However, it is 
> likely that more
> folks need to participate to make sure that such things don't happen.
> 
>> And in particular how do you propose to select an IETF representative and 
>> who/how it's going to give her/him its mandate to represent the organization 
>> on other forums ?
> 
> That is the essential question of this discussion, and hence the reason for 
> my email.
> 
> I'd recommend that the IETF select leaders whose integrity you trust, you 
> provide them 
> with documents of whatever principles the IETF considers important and how it 
> views 
> it relations with other Internet institutions (could be developed via 
> Internet Drafts) and 
> ask them to report back as frequently as possible.   Alternatively, the IETF 
> could opt
> to not participate in such discussions at all, and deal with any developments 
> after the 
> fact (an option only if there is sufficient faith that the current models, 
> structures, and 
> relationships of the IETF are inviolate.)
> 
> FYI,
> /John

Re: Of governments and representation (was: Montevideo Statement)

[John Curran]

On Oct 11, 2013, at 9:32 AM, Jorge Amodio  wrote:

> Just to start, there is no clear consensus of what "Internet Governance" 
> means and entails.

You are correct.  The term "Internet Governance" is a term of art, and a poor 
one
at that.  It is the term that governments like to use, and in fact, in 2005 
several of 
them got together at the United Nations-initiated World Summit on the 
Information 
Society (WSIS) and came up with the following definition:

"Internet governance is the development and application by Governments, the 
private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared 
principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape 
the evolution and use of the Internet."  


I happen to hate the term "Internet Governance", but its use has become a 
common 
as shorthand for the discussions of governments expressing their needs and 
desires 
with respect to the Internet, its related institutions, and civil society.

It might not be necessary for the IETF to be involved (if it so chooses), but 
I'm not
certain that leaving it to ISOC would make sense if/when the discussion moves 
into 
areas such as structures for managing delegated registries of IETF-defined 
protocols
(i.e. protocols, names, numbers)

> In your particular case as President and CEO of ARIN, clearly you "lead" that 
> organization but it does not make you representative of the Internet or its 
> users. I can't find anywhere in the Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation of 
> ARIN the word "Governance."
> 
> Nobody will deny any of the alleged "leaders" to participate in any meeting, 
> conference, event, in their individual capacities, but NONE has any 
> representation of the whole Internet.

Full agreement there...  No one has any representation of the entire Internet, 
and 
we should oppose the establishment of any structures that might aspire to such.

> Do we really want to create a "government" for the Internet ? How do you 
> propose to select people to be representatives for all the sectors ? 

I do not, and expect others on this list feel the same.  However, it is likely 
that more
folks need to participate to make sure that such things don't happen.

> And in particular how do you propose to select an IETF representative and 
> who/how it's going to give her/him its mandate to represent the organization 
> on other forums ?

That is the essential question of this discussion, and hence the reason for my 
email.

I'd recommend that the IETF select leaders whose integrity you trust, you 
provide them 
with documents of whatever principles the IETF considers important and how it 
views 
it relations with other Internet institutions (could be developed via Internet 
Drafts) and 
ask them to report back as frequently as possible.   Alternatively, the IETF 
could opt
to not participate in such discussions at all, and deal with any developments 
after the 
fact (an option only if there is sufficient faith that the current models, 
structures, and 
relationships of the IETF are inviolate.)

FYI,
/John

Re: Of governments and representation (was: Montevideo Statement)

[Brian E Carpenter]

Hi John,

On 12/10/2013 05:02, John Curran wrote:
...
> In my personal view, it is a very important for the IETF to select leadership 
> who can
> participate in any discussions that occur,

Without obsessing about the word "leadership", but following up on a comment
made by Noel Chiappa on the "leader statements" thread, I think we have
to recognise that nothing in the NomCom process, the IAB Charter, or
the IESG Charter, would cause us to select IAB or IETF Chairs who are
particularly suited to this role.

In fact I think that the plan of record is to leave such matters to
ISOC.

Reality is different - the outside world expects to hear from us.

 Brian

Re: Of governments and representation (was: Montevideo Statement)

[Jorge Amodio]

Just to start, there is no clear consensus of what "Internet Governance"
means and entails.

Several organizations just as ICANN, ISOC, ARIN, etc, play a specific role
in the development and operations of the Internet, but by no means are
"representative" of the Internet as a whole, even if you claim that
organizations such as ICANN are muti stakeholders.

Each of the the "leaders" are leading each organization and the sum of the
"leaders" does not make them "leaders of the Internet"

No doubt each institution is important and has to play the role it has to
play, but when you get into governance matters (which again is not clearly
defined what "governance" of the Internet means) some institutions could be
stepping out of their mission and role. Clear example is ICANN, I don't
know who authorized or delegated any sort of mandate to Fadi to get into
conversations about Internet Governance with the Government of Brazil. Yes
he leads ICANN, but as such, he is just and administrative/executive
employee.

In your particular case as President and CEO of ARIN, clearly you "lead"
that organization but it does not make you representative of the Internet
or its users. I can't find anywhere in the Bylaws and Articles of
Incorporation of ARIN the word "Governance."

Nobody will deny any of the alleged "leaders" to participate in any
meeting, conference, event, in their individual capacities, but NONE has
any representation of the whole Internet.

About NSA/Snowden/etc, mixing this matter with Internet Governance make
things more complicated. It would be nice for all governments to come out
clear of what kind of surveillance they do on the Internet (including the
Brazilian Government). IMHO this is a complete separate discussion.

Do we really want to create a "government" for the Internet ? How do you
propose to select people to be representatives for all the sectors ?

And in particular how do you propose to select an IETF representative and
who/how it's going to give her/him its mandate to represent the
organization on other forums ?

My 0.02
Jorge