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,
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
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 01:0
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
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 dis
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 _c
> 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 th
It was pointed out that I got the RFC numbers wrong. Sorry. I should have RFC
6220 (role of IETF protocol parameters operators) and RFC 2850 (IAB charter).
Jari
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> I think that is a better approach actually. The CC TLDs are in effect
> members of a bridge CA and ICANN is merely the bridge administrator.
It is an interesting way to say it, and put that way, I like it.
One activity that I believe is an NSA attack on goo
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 t
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,
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 "le
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 cla
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
Dave,
> The fact that you had to reach back 2.5 years, to a frankly rather obscure
> document that came from the IAB and not the broader IETF, demonstrates my
> point that we lacked meaningful context
You asked for context and I provided a context. We can certainly debate how
meaningful it is
Hi Medel,
At 19:11 09-10-2013, Medel v6 Ramirez wrote:
Leaders were "processed" thoroughly prior to their appointment so I
trust them. And that they hold through the "spirit" of being an IETF
and shall be responsible under oath for any impact on the organization.
There was a Recall petition la
I like your approach and comments, and I think that our ietf leaders are
not always leaders but in IESG they are the managers. Mostly ietf ruled by
community consensus not presidents, so we have many leaders including you
and some others may be additional leaders for the community. The ietf wants
On 10/11/2013 7:31 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
Dave:
On IANA:
Further, I believe there is no IETF context
RFC 6020 and
http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2011/07/IANA-IAB-FNOI-2011.pdf
Jari,
The fact that you had to reach back 2.5 years, to a frankly rather
obscure document that came
On Oct 9, 2013, at 10:11 PM, Medel v6 Ramirez wrote:
> Leaders were "processed" thoroughly prior to their appointment so I trust
> them. And that they hold through the "spirit" of being an IETF and shall be
> responsible under oath for any impact on the organization.
I don't know precisely what
Dave:
On IANA:
> Further, I believe there is no IETF context
RFC 6020 and
http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2011/07/IANA-IAB-FNOI-2011.pdf
Jari
On 10October2013Thursday, at 1:30, SM wrote:
> At 12:27 09-10-2013, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> Now, there is indeed a possible issue, and that is that these chairs
>> were attending a "chief officer"-type meeting: there were CEOs and so
>> on, and (presumably by analogy) the chairs got invited to
On 10/8/2013 11:34 AM, IETF Chair wrote:
I wanted to send a link to a statement that Russ and I signed as a
part of a meeting that we held last week with the leaders of other
Internet organisations.
http://www.internetsociety.org/news/montevideo-statement-future-internet-cooperation
Folks
Leaders were "processed" thoroughly prior to their appointment so I trust
them. And that they hold through the "spirit" of being an IETF and shall be
responsible under oath for any impact on the organization.
BR,
Medel
GOOGLE IS IPv6 COMPLIANT !
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Abdussalam Baryu
First off, we like to be in a situation where past IETF discussion, consensus,
RFCs, and current work program guide what the leaders say. I think this was
largely the case with the Montevideo statement as well. Of course these are
judgment calls. Please send us feedback - I for instance talk in
> From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
> I have argued for junking the DARPA constitution for years. It was
> designed to keep power in the hands of the few while the rest of the
> organization didn't worry their pretty heads about it.
Factually incorrect in a number of ways. The NomComm s
As a practical matter any organization that tries to do things with other
organizations needs to have some party that can act on its behalf. That is
why Ambassadors are necessary.
The current constitution of the IETF means that the chairs of the IAB and
the IETF have very limited authority to spea
At 12:27 09-10-2013, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Now, there is indeed a possible issue, and that is that these chairs
were attending a "chief officer"-type meeting: there were CEOs and so
on, and (presumably by analogy) the chairs got invited to represent
the organizations of which they are chairs. J
I agree to appoint leader under clear procedures, so I am not sure of
representing without procedure is authorised in ietf, but I trust that ietf
leaders do practice procedure, but not sure if discussion meant that there
was something missing in this statement practice.
AB
On Wednesday, October 9
d to that
>> discussion.
>
> One of the organizations mentioned in the statement commented about it as
> follows:
>
> "Internet/Web Organizations Issue Montevideo Statement on the Future
> of Internet Cooperation"
>
> "The leaders of organizations resp
of the organizations mentioned in the
statement commented about it as follows:
"Internet/Web Organizations Issue Montevideo Statement on the Future
of Internet Cooperation"
"The leaders of organizations responsible for coordination of the Internet
technical infrastructu
Dear colleagues,
Once again, I'm speaking only for myself. I think there is an
important matter here for the IETF community to think about,
particularly as the Nomcom is _right now_ seeking nominees for open
positions. I want to be very careful to emphasise that I do not
intend to specify a pref
We appointed our leaders, we have to trust them. They had to do a call,
an important one and they made it.
I support what they did, that is what we chose them for, to represent
us and be our voice. We cannot expect that they ask our opinion for
every decision they made, that is no
On Oct 9, 2013, at 9:02 AM, Tobias Gondrom wrote:
> On 09/10/13 14:14, Ted Lemon wrote:
>> On Oct 9, 2013, at 6:45 AM, Tobias Gondrom
>> wrote:
>>
>>> But I support SM's proposal that it would be good
>>> to do a few days comment period for such important statements in the
>>> future - if tim
SM:
> This is the second time that the IAB has issued a statement without
> requesting comments from the IETF Community. In my humble opinion it would
> be good if there was a comment period.
This is a statement about what happened at a meeting. Discussion would not
change what happened at t
On 09/10/13 14:14, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Oct 9, 2013, at 6:45 AM, Tobias Gondrom wrote:
>> But I support SM's proposal that it would be good
>> to do a few days comment period for such important statements in the
>> future - if timing is not critical. There is no harm in a few days delay
>> and ge
--On Wednesday, October 09, 2013 02:44 -0400 Andrew Sullivan
wrote:
>...
> That does not say that the IAB has issued a statement. On the
> contrary, the IAB did not issue a statement. I think the
> difference between some individuals issuing a statement in
> their capacity as chairs and CEOs
On Oct 9, 2013, at 6:45 AM, Tobias Gondrom wrote:
> But I support SM's proposal that it would be good
> to do a few days comment period for such important statements in the
> future - if timing is not critical. There is no harm in a few days delay
> and getting input from the community.
This is a
> From: Andrew Sullivan
> I merely request that we, all of us, attend to the difference between
> "the IAB Chair says" and "the IAB says".
We may attend to it, but we are unable to make sure that the rest of the world
pays attention to that nuance.
> From: SM
> In my humbl
On 09/10/13 07:44, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 10:55:08PM -0700, SM wrote:
>> This is the second time that the IAB has issued a statement
> Speaking only (empahtically only) for myself, I quite strongly
> disagree. The IAB has issued no statement in this c
On Oct 8, 2013, at 11:44 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 10:55:08PM -0700, SM wrote:
>> This is the second time that the IAB has issued a statement
>
> Speaking only (empahtically only) for myself, I quite strongly
> disagree. The IAB has issued no st
Dear colleagues,
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 10:55:08PM -0700, SM wrote:
> This is the second time that the IAB has issued a statement
Speaking only (empahtically only) for myself, I quite strongly
disagree. The IAB has issued no statement in this case.
The text as posted is quite clear:
---%<---c
age
(http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/anuncios/2013-lacnic-acerca-espionaje).
The statement signed by the IAB Chair
(http://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2013-2/montevideo-statement-on-the-future-of-internet-cooperation/)
is about future of Internet Cooperation.
This is
On 8October2013Tuesday, at 6:19, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:53 AM, manning bill wrote:
> >
> >
> > I think the US executive branch would be better rid of the control before
> > the vandals work out how to use it for mischief. But better would be to
> > ensu
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> > I think the US executive branch would be better rid of the control
> > before the
> > vandals work out how to use it for mischief. But better would be to
> > ensure that
> > no such l
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:53 AM, manning bill wrote:
> >
> >
> > I think the US executive branch would be better rid of the control
> before the vandals work out how to use it for mischief. But better would be
> to ensure that no such leverage exists. There is no reason for the apex of
> the DNS t
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> I think the US executive branch would be better rid of the control
> before the
> vandals work out how to use it for mischief. But better would be to
> ensure that
> no such leverage exists. There is no reason for the apex of the DNS to
> be a
>
>
> I think the US executive branch would be better rid of the control before the
> vandals work out how to use it for mischief. But better would be to ensure
> that no such leverage exists. There is no reason for the apex of the DNS to
> be a single root, it could be signed by a quorum of s
anding, to make similarly ill-advised requests.
Or to connect back to the Montevideo statement, how to manage a
globally cohesive One Internet without exposing it to the threat of
legal assault. I.e. how to put the Internet above the law of any one
nation state, essentially.
Today, a popular be
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> >
> > This wording is surprising. It looks like it is the revelations that
> > undermined confidence, and not the NSA actions. I would prefer
> > something like, to avoid shooting the messenger:
>
> Of course :-) We meant that the loss of privac
>
> This wording is surprising. It looks like it is the revelations that
> undermined confidence, and not the NSA actions. I would prefer
> something like, to avoid shooting the messenger:
Of course :-) We meant that the loss of privacy causes concern, not the
revelations.
Jari
>
> http://www.internetsociety.org/news/montevideo-statement-future-internet-cooperation
> They expressed strong concern over the undermining of the trust and
> confidence of Internet users globally due to recent revelations of
> pervasive monitoring and surveillance.
This wording is surprising.
I wanted to send a link to a statement that Russ and I signed as a part of a
meeting that we held last week with the leaders of other Internet organisations.
http://www.internetsociety.org/news/montevideo-statement-future-internet-cooperation
Jari Arkko
IETF Chair
52 matches
Mail list logo