There are really two questions, what should we do and what can they make us do? As I suggested to Harald when this came up last year. Why not just let them take over the IETF lock stock and barrel? The only effect that would have is that there would be an immediate defection of the Working Groups to an organization with a different title but essentially the same people running it. We might see some overdue organizational reforms in the process such as the replacement of NOMCON with direct elections, we would be forced to face the fact that the RFC editorship and IANA models are antiquated but that would be all. The IETF is not the only standards organization that influences the Internet. That is not a bad thing at all. The real question is what influence the rump legacy IETF would have. They would control IANA and the RFC editorship but that is all. The RFC editorship could and should be replaced by an automated submission system. IANA is only needed because the IETF insists on designing protocols that assume the existence of fixed allocation registries. Well MIME type allocations do entirely well despite the fact that official IANA registered types are a small fraction of the total. SRV entry point registrations work fine too, the IANA registry is considerably smaller and less authoritative than the unofficial one. So one thing that we should do is to stop trying to force protocol design into a mold the preserves IANA control. If we insist that the only way to extend the DNS is through IANA RR assignments then whoever controls IANA controls the net. Fortunately cutting new DNS RRs is completely unnecessary. Prefixes work just as well if you are prepared to let them (the silly argument made in the IAB paper is not true). The defense side is fine but that does not mean that the IETF can or should ignore diplomacy. The issues that the Brazillians and the Egyptians have raised are not without justification. The W3C does not have this problem despite being larger and more active. This is because the W3C has been much better at convincing people that it is open and considers the issues raised by non-US, non-European Internet users just as seriously as domestic ones. I agree that this is not the real problem with the IETF the truth is that US and European Internet users are also ignored. The situation is unfortuately engineering for engineers. If you allow a bunch of engineers to create their ideal working conditions they would allow unlimited scope for technical excellence with no hard deadlines and no need to ever interact with the actual customers. Diplomacy requires a change in this approach. It is as important to be seen to listen as to listen. The IETF does not have a formal process for active listening. That is the work that I think the IAB should be doing. The big problem here is that the W3C has a large budget to fund its listening activities. The IETF does not. Some imagination is needed here. Perhaps a series of regional conferences/round table discussions. The issues raised by the Brazillians are valid, the issues raised by Iran are not. Here there is a larger context of geo-politics that I don't want to get into and I think will be temporary in any case. What cannot be negotiable is the introduction of any technology into the Internet to enable or facilitate government control of its users. The Web was designed to give dictators a choice: if you want to be part of the rich industrialized world you have to allow relatively unfettered access to information that will inevitably undermine authoritarian government. This has worked in practice, the great firewall is really just a face saving device, the authorities know that the real threat to their rule comes from inside the country. The question is how to manage a peaceful transition. William Gibson once called cyberspace a consensual illusion. The description is also appropriate for government, kings only exist where there are courtiers willing to bow down to them. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf