On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > Brian E Carpenter <brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > I don't think we can require the IESG to negotiate anything. There are > > all kinds of legal issues there. To my knowledge, both WGs and the IESG > > do think carefully about this, but often conclude that the default IETF > > conditions (RAND) are realistic and acceptable. > > If IETF continues to believe this, groups like Apache and Debian will continue > to have to end-run IETF by doing the job of defending the Internet commons > that IETF is abdicating, and IETF's authority will evaporate. Neither of the groups you mention are standards organizations. They can't "end-run" the IETF because they don't produce standards, any more than Microsoft produces standards. Nor can they "end-run" the IETF any more than Microsoft can end-run the IETF. The "defacto standards" promoted by one company are often rejected by the wider community, even though they might have a profitable and sizeable user base. It is also not the IETF's role to "defend the internet commons". It is the IETF's role to produce open standards. Defense of the internet commons, while necessary and good, is not a job of the IETF, nor is it a job the IETF can take on at present. The FSF and other groups (including Apache and Debian) are doing a good job of defending the internet commons. > It is not 1982 or even 1992 any more. Conditions have changed dramatically. > I would hate to see IETF dwindle into irrelevance, but that is exactly > where statements like this are pointing. People are interested in standards and useful technology, and will be for the forseeable future. -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf