On 12/Apr/11 18:31, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > Todd, > > This is totally confused and you are completely wrong. > > Under the Federal Election Campaign Act > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Election_Campaign_Act>, an > organization becomes a "political committee" by receiving > contributions or making expenditures in excess of $1,000 for the > purpose of influencing a federal election > [Source Wikipedia] > > Since neither the IETF nor ISOC has any interest in influencing a > federal election, nor does it engage in any activity intended to do > so, it is not a political committee under the terms of the act. The way politics is currently being done is not necessarily adequate. Let me just note that the root problem is that we are sharing this planet among a few billions individuals. That is certainly a political problem. However, given that communication is potentially proportional to the square of the communicating parties, it is also a technical problem. I claim that it is not possible to neatly discern between political and technical issues, although only one of those two aspects appears to be dominant in many specific cases. To justify this claim, suffice it to say that the /amount/ of traffic has a paramount physical limit, time, whose use cannot be regulated by any single-sided approach --either political or technical, only. For an example: spam. Is it an only-technical problem to devise adequate means for politics? For the reciprocal question, whether politics should intrude into technology, the ISOC, talking about the IETF and similar bodies, recommends that politics do not "assert any authority over those organizations by any mechanism" [1]. So, how do we tackle spam and similar issues where neither aspect is prevalent? 1. ISOC's response to NTIA request for comments on IANA functions http://isoc.org/wp/newsletter/files/2011/03/Internet-Society-Response-Docket.pdf 30 March 2011 > On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 4:56 PM, todd glassey <tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > <mailto:tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > On 3/23/2011 12:02 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: > > On Mar 23, 2011, at 6:52 AM, SM wrote: > > The IETF can only address the technical problems. > > This is an argument I often hear. I do, however, believe that > you cannot see technology in isolation. > > Yeah - sure you can... if you want to be totally about the > original design and practice of the IETF and its vision. It was > built to advance protocol standardization and not to decide what > protocols it would allow on the Internet and which it wouldn't. > But lately many have forgotten this and are using the IETF as a > formal lobby for technological policy advancement and that's a no-no. > > Bluntly the IETF members are becoming more and more aggressively > politically and this statement is based on IAB and other > publication on what the IETF does and does not allow through its > frameworks. In doing so their statements about allowing protocols > or not allowing protocols to be standardized based on their stated > perception of "what damages the Internet" or what they personally > want to see as a "free access to all information and ideas" model, > creates a real serious divergence from the Standards Practice this > organization was set up as, and IMHO is one which is designed > clearly to destroy global Intellectual Property law and practice. > > However, in many cases the technology, regulatory environment, > business aspects, and the social context gets mixed together. > > No Hannes - it doesn't unless the Chair allows it to - meaning > that the Chair in this instance has allowed political materials to > be fielded (filed in this instance) into the IETF and trust me I > am already filing a formal complaint with the Treasury about > ISOC's becoming a formal PAC and its locking out protocol efforts > based on its own desires therein... > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morris-policy-cons-00 > > > I suggest that the Chair immediately post a formal statement that > the IETF is a-political and will not do anything but standardize > technology. Also that ONLY technology drafts can be accepted > since the IETF is part of ISOC and not registered as a political > PAC or Lobbying Agency which it clearly has become in direct > violation of the NTIA MOU which gave it (ISOC and its ARIN) the > real power. > > > Todd Glassey > > Please have a look at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morris-policy-cons-00 > > Ciao > Hannes > > > Hannes - this is the issue with the IETF and the gross number of > flaming idiots inside of it. The IETF is not a Social Reform > Agency, nor is it a freaking political action group since its > financial filings prevent this. > > Todd Glassey _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf