On Mon 13/Aug/2012 03:22:52 +0200 JFC Morfin wrote: > At 19:16 11/08/2012, John C Klensin wrote: > >> On the other hand, irrational behavior would be nothing new in this >> area so I can't disagree with the possibility. > > Correct. This is why, if I understand the motivation, I strongly > disagree with the wording of the document and your evaluation of the > situation. The US/IETF rationale being used is disagreed by non-US > related industries and most probably by every Government (including > the USG) because it looks like SDOs wanted to decide alone, based upon > market results, about the standards for the people they represent. FWIW, I'd like to recall that several governments endorse IETF protocols by establishing Internet based procedures for official communications with the relevant PA, possibly giving them legal standing. Francesco Gennai presented a brief review of such procedures[*] at the APPSAWG meeting in Paris. At the time, John Klensin suggested that, while a more in-depth review of existing practices would be appreciated, the ITU is a more suitable body for the standardization of a unified, compatible protocol for certified email, because of those governmental involvements. [*] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-appsawg-1.pdf