At 8:15 AM -0400 8/4/02, Melinda Shore wrote: > > Not sure what your point is. > >"Let me draw you a map." > >Just because something is interesting or important or smells >wonderful doesn't mean that this is the correct forum for >discussing it. I agree with Caitlin that this is not the >right place to be holding a political discussion about an >external body. > >Melinda +++++++++ Hi Melinda -- The root problem with your analysis is that the IETF/IAB had a large role in the establishment of ICANN and in blessing its actions. So here I will redraw your map to include some critical omissions. In fact, the issue of IAB blessing the formation of ICANN in the first place was specifically and formally discussed on this IETF list as a formal action in gaining a so called broad consensus of the working group level of the IETF for blessing the formation of ICANN with its initial mission which has led to the current situation. So, it is now appropriate for this mailing list to review the results and to discuss the issues that have therefrom arisen, whether the issue is formally placed on the agenda of this list or not. The IAB put this issue here, and here it shall remain until it is somehow taken off. What you do not seem to see is that the IETF/IAB long ago slipped into being political in nature, and there is nothing anyone can do about it short of having a political discussion here on the question of whether or not the IETF/IAB should be involved in political activities. The simple fact is that the IETF is active in political affairs. It was the deliberate actions of the IAB at the Chicago IETF to secure IETF blessings for the formation of ICANN that conclusively led me to end my long period of IETF meeting attendance. The current outcome of those actions are what we now see unfolding. It is important to note that the appointment (selection?) of the IETF sponsored member of the ICANN Board of Directors is announced and discussed here, to the extent that it enjoys any public discussion. Therefore, the IETF/IAB bears some responsibility for the current situation. Is there any report of the actions of the IETF/IAB selected member of the ICANN BoD? Such might exist, but if so, I have missed seeing it or any notice there-of. So, I now wish to ask you a basic question: Are you objecting to the way the past political actions of the IETF/IAB have turned out (e.g., the ICANN MESS) or advocating the concept that the IETF should now somehow cease being a political action organization. Or are you just upset to find out what has been and is really going on here? The problem is that getting out of this situation requires open political discussion somewhere in a designated IETF forum. This assumes that the IETF participants now want to get out of their political role. Among other things, the IETF/IAB leaders who got us into this mess are no longer in a position to control the outcome, so perhaps the current leadership might find a way to declare a withdrawal, but to do so will require continued political discussion somewhere... The unfortunate fact is that we are where we are because of past actions that cannot now be erased, or ignored. So, there are some really critical issues that need to be discussed somewhere, perhaps in a new incarnation of the POISED WG that sorted out the issues of the great Boston Tea Party a decade ago. Those were clearly political issues. It is hard in the world of the Internet, where the results of IETF technical decisions lead to major disruptions of the social and economic activities of the world, to totally ignore those disruptions as though they are not attributable to the IETF/IAB. I suspect it is going to take another Boston Tea Party inspired "poised" kind of effort to right the overturned canoe. Perhaps you can get this issue placed on the next open IETF or IAB plenary session at the next IETF meeting. Perhaps the poised WG should be convened every 10 years to review the situation that has resulted from to previous Poised effort. 10 years appears to be a natural period of the natural Internet paradigmatic shift cycle. The issues that the IETF now works on have obvious political outcomes, whether you like politics or not. The new paradigmatic shift that is occurring has risen above the technical base to impact the whole realm of interpersonal trust and the problem of inducing trust in across the Internet. So, at this point, the issue of whether we can or should trust ICANN, or anyone else with our future is on the table. We can deal with it, or ignore it. We have a choice. Another factor is that a significant number of ICANN advocates are still with us here in this list, and it is unlikely that they will go away because of your call for removal of political issues from discussion here. Actually my bet is that they will try to stifle open discussion of these issues here if they do not like the direction that discussion takes. But, they are the ones that made this bed, so they should be among the ones to sleep in it. So, quite frankly, I do not know how to suggest extraction of the IETF from current political discussions in an open IETF discussion list. Maybe some of the IETF leadership team can think of a way. I suspect it will require some kind of fresh start. Clearly the IETF has come to a major turning point in its history. Cheers...\Stef