Jefsey, you are proposing involving the regional and local chapters in the standards process.
Dear Sam,
thank you responding seriously on this point. I value very much this, because the reel problem is, IMHO, to discuss it. And you point out the very concerns everyone should have.
First, I want to underline that I do not propose involving the regional and local chapters. I propose words for two things:
- that IAOC members are also retained for their regional competences. This is to avoid that the IASA lacks knowledge and competences which would make them consider or favor contractors from a single expensive area. This is CIO prevention and good management protection.
- that ISOC and their national (not local) Chapters discuss and report how they could bring their support to the IASA. This has nothing to do with the Internet standard process. However I do not hide that I hope some common case studies could lead active chapter to better contribute (through Last Calls or in organizing local mailing lists as some countries have tried, what is a good educational support). And some inactive chapter to wake up. And that this could help the IETF to wake up on international/multilingual/vernacular issues.
That's a major shift both for the ISOC and for the IETF. It's also inconsistent as far as I can tell with what other organizations like IEEE that have both chapters and standards-related activities do.
This is no shift. The shift is in calling upon ISOC administrative hosting. The choice was between a self built structure and ISOC. ISOC was chosen and comes with an history, an image and a structure. The IASA will share that. As you say, this is totally apart from the IETF. But they will blur in people's mind. ICANN could have been hosted by ISOC: they said no for that reason. ICANN has a huge problem to be identified as an international organization. ISOC can help addressing that problem for the IETF and if not we have to make clear this was not our intent.
We are at a cross-road. IETF, IAB, ICANN, ISOC, etc. are increasingly identified as US centered organizations ("USOC or USOK"). They all pay a real effort to look and be international, but they still have very long way to go to be and to be accepted as multinational (what we all need if we want to avoid a balkanization of the Internet and a technical fragmentation).
My opinion is that if we keep their efforts separated they will be less efficient than if we permit them to be in synergy. But we have to make it a very flexible way, otherwise old rigidities - like here, in this case - will make it worse.
I agree with you that some members of regional and local ISOC chapters would (and do) bring significant value to the standards process.
If they do it this is at personal level - as far as the Internet standard process is concerned.
And this is good except on the Multilingual Internet topic, but that topic is, right now, out of competence and interest of the IAB/Internet. This is something I disapprove, but if you read RFC 3869 and if you note that the RFC 3066 mailing list is not an IETF working group [however sponsored by the IETF Chair], if you read RFC 3490 which permits to prevent internationalized TLDs, etc. you must accept it.
Where national Chapters can contribute is in "selling" the Internet documents and IETF core values to their Govs and market. Also to provide feed back from their market to the IETF (I say could, not should). It is not in staying apart in a multilingual world that IETF and IAB will get increased support and R&D funding.
I question though whether directly involving the regional and local chapters would actually be the right way of involving these people why not involve them directly?
Again, I do not know. But in calling upon ISOC we necessarily, in a way or another, attach their image to the IETF. For good of for bad. We have to tackle that aspect.
Also, I'm concerned that there might be some significant disadvantages to directly involving regional and local chapters in the standards work. Traditionally we've had problems/friction when marketing/management types get involved in the IETF. At best it slows things down.
:-) this is a genuine acknowledgment of the lack of desire of the IETF to get users of its deliverable involved. This is why I always tried to discuss the charter and the (pre) last call only. I think this is exactly what the Internet standard process calls for. My only disagreement with this is that the IESG should include users representatives to save time: when the market turn an RFC wrong it creates delays and confusion we could have spared (last example being the Draft on Langtags).
But again, this is not what I propose. What I propose is that, once again, the IAB/IETF do not send a strong "I am not interested" to all those who would like to feel the Internet standard process as also an home process. Because they are right now discussing how to build another more multilateral process.
However I think ISOC wants to have a broad appeal with its local chapters pulling in people from all parts of Internet business.
Yes. I think every Internet entity should pull in the same direction and together. IETF can certainly help ISOC being nationally more attractive. ISOC to help the IASA to be more suscessful and cheaper when organizing an IETF meeting. ICANN failed there because they killed @large. ISOC can bring its own plus. All I say is: this may be one of the last chance of IETF to be accepted as multinational. I hate seeing it lost. Because the Internet can only be multilingual and its standardization forum can only be multinational.
I started working on a "Multilingual Internet documentation through the existing Internet standard process" draft this summer. I thought it possible, even if it is not a trivial architecturally demanding on the IABt. Even after the "RFC 3066bis" draft and this no-IASA-internationalization episodes I still think it possible. But I frankly consider that if nothing moves in that area this year, the IETF/IAB network architecture will be totally out-dated (has anyone investigated the real impact of a true multilingual and vernacular usage on applications and the way they will appropriate IPv6, totally changing naming and DNS, etc. )
I only hope we can progressively bring the IETF up to speed. Harald challenged me on that. I am not interested in a challenge. I only think we could together save a few years of delays, confusion and of the consequences of the delays and of the confusion (with all the related waste of time, money, efforts, motivation, sustainable development, etc.) in keeping the IETF as the "internet" standardizing body, rather than copying it elsewhere.
Nothing more. I do not know if there is still a chance, but I think it is worth trying it.
jfc
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf