Re: FW: Affirmation of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm

Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxxxx> · Wed, 15 Aug 2012 14:44:16 +0200



    Hi John,

    
    On 8/15/12 2:15 PM, John E Drake wrote:

    
            To me (and I speak only for me here), the purpose of this
            document is to articulate principles that have made the
            Internet a success.
        
           
          JD:  This
              seems a bit presumptuous to me.
        
      
    It's an assertion.  I wouldn't claim, by the way, that this was the
    only factor.  IMHO, it was a contributing factor.  Moore's Law and
    the development of technology in general all contributed, but you
    had to have a process that was open for the technology to flourish. 
    IMHO this is why SNA, DECNET, Appletalk, XNS, OSI, and others did
    not win, where IP did.

    
          It is a means to invite
              others to subscribe to those same principles, and there
              are many standards organizations that do not.
           
          JD:  I would
              be willing to bet that nearly every SDO would claim they
              embrace these same principles.
        
      
    And that's a fair point.  The proof is in the pudding.  I believe,
    and I know you do too, that the IETF itself can explain in clear
    indisputable terms how it fulfills the principles of openness. 
    Anyone can join a WG list.  Anyone can submit an Internet-Draft,
    anyone can comment on that draft, anyone can request that draft's
    advancement, anyone can comment on or contribute to or object to
    that draft's advancement, anyone can be a part of the leadership
    (one needn't even have ever participated in the IETF before!!). 
    Decisions are made through a consensus process.  That process is
    designed to be transparent.  There are appellate avenues for abuse
    of process.  They have worked and are working.  I am told for
    instance that at this very moment there is an appeal before the
    applications area director that seems to me particularly meaty. 
    That's good.  It's important that people know that there is an
    appeals avenue available.

    
    The W3C is very similar.  The IEEE SA is also similar.  So are
    others, and that's fine.  But there are many other organizations
    where it's just not the case, and so...

    
          Customers and society can
              demand better, and this is an avenue for that.
           
          JD:  How,
              exactly?

              
    How about a phone call?  A blog?  A press release?  Laws and
    regulations requiring the use of standards based on those
    principles?

    
    Eliot