At 09:57 28/10/2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Someone made the comment that there may be people who (like me) read the IETF list more often than they read the IETF-announce list - here's a copy of the call for consensus, just to make sure you've all seen it...
Dear Harald,
the work you have engaged is necessary, but most probably not the top priority - if you take into account the call from IAB (RFC 3869) which concerns the deliverables. Deliverables should be considered first or at least equal. But in both there is a real practical problem that you may overlook. It is the reporting/working method. I explain.
One of the IETF problem is that it is "owned" (no critic, just trying to find a quick and poor word to best name a feeling) by old timers and their ways of thinking and working (RFC 3774). This comes with the plain text draft system. This is a good approach for the Internet standard process. But in this case it makes your propositions on several successive drafts, there is no flow chart, no diagram, no easy to peruse web site, no wiki, there are acronyms a plenty, etc. While all this relates to a topic and thinking which is not the usual concern in here.
IMHO this probably does not speak to most, hence the low response level on a key issue. In whole, I tried to spend three or four hours - what is already a lot of time for most - reading now outdated drafts, and mails on this. I am afraid I recall quite nothing.
I suggest you try to do what Roessler did for the ICANN proposed reform: a web site with colored diagrams, giving the two or three options in column, with con and pros on a wiki. Then you tell people it will take them an hour to read it all and to make their mind.
My evaluation is that a governance has four poles around the user : technical, societal, economic, political. The Internet bulb was the economic implosion. The @large issue and Mike Roberts' call and working group was the societal implosion. Stuart Mills call, Alexandro's reform and WSIS was the political implosion. RFC 3869 and this are dealing with a rampant technical implosion. The technical side has the leadership (because one needs an infrastructure to build upon and because "constitution is in the code"). So a real global rebuild and a new start of the whole internet governance and business could start from here. This is worth working on it!
IAB has not fully documented the full challenge (model, multilingualism, semantic web, RFID, etc. are missing) but it has boldly identified the problem, as you also did. So, we have most of the decision elements at hand, but not a clear coordinated description and explanation "leaflet" to help opinion making. (I may also have a low IQ, but please remember that we have many cultures involved and one of the identified problems what I would nickname "LIC & LIQ" participation [local internet communities and low IQ] towards a dynamic consensus).
Economic usage of the net is not what we could have hoped for, but it develops a lot. @large are currently a failure but there is no reason why consumers and civil society etc. would not come back globally as they do in some places and through the WSIS. The "internet governance" debate is active and may lead to a good intergovernance of the digital ecosystem. I think you should succeed, and all of us with you, but you need far more support to get a momentum. From previous experiences I think you will agree that you need 3000 people (existing and new) informed and supportive, not 200. Otherwise you will have a dull consensus, a workable patch, but not a good motivating tool.
I think it is possible and I am ready to help, but in a coordinated way. For example there are in some countries ISOC groups of national IETF Members (when there are not, this would be a motivation for local chapter to investigate one and to make ISOC better known). This would be a good way to inform and motivate people and to get feed backs. I have discussed that with our French Chair at length yesterday and there is no problem for a debate and public meeting. This is a way to make our Members more aware, more motivated but also to out-reach to new members and address some of the RFC 3774 critics about the US nexus and culture.
My 2 euro cents. jfc
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf