On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 1:25 AM, SM <sm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
At 10:19 29-12-2012, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote::-)
ICANN is a US corporation and the US government can obviously pass laws that prevent ICANN/IANA from releasing address blocks that would reach certain countries no matter what Crocker et. al. say to the contrary. But absent a deployed BGP security
What people say and what they actually do or mean is often a very different matter. An individual may have principles (or beliefs). A stakeholder has interests. There was an individual who mentioned on an IETF mailing list that he/she disagreed with his/her company's stance. It's unlikely that a stakeholder would say that.
At 14:46 29-12-2012, Patrik Fältström wrote:
In the new world, "governance" is no longer "by decree", "by legislation" or similar. In the new world we use the word "collaboration", and that is done via policy development processes that are multi stakeholder and bottom up. Like in the RIRs (for IP addresses
The reason that rule is useful is that just as it is ridiculous for the US representative to the ITU to attempt to convey the positions of Comcast and Google, it is no more practical for one person to represent the position of Cisco or Microsoft.
Where the problem comes in is when you have a proposal that requires the active support and participation of stakeholders like VeriSign. When I told the IETF that DNSSEC would be deployed in dot.com if and only if the opt-in proposal was accepted, I was stating the official position of a stakeholder whose participation was essential if DNSSEC was going to be deployed.
It was a really minor change but the reason it was blocked was one individual had the crazy idea that blocking deployment of DNSSEC would cause VeriSign to lose dotcom. He was not the only person with that idea but he was the only person in a position to wreck all progress in the IETF if he didn't get his way.
For projects like IPv6 the standards development process needs to be better at identifying the necessary stakeholders and ensuring that enough essential requirements of enough stakeholders are met. Otherwise we end up with yet another Proposed Standard RFC that everyone ignores.
The main fault of IETF culture is the idea that the Internet is waiting to receive everything that we toss over the wall. That is not how I view the utility of the process. If I want to have fun designing something I invite at most five people to the brainstorming session then one person writes it up. The only reason to have more then five people is to seek buy-in from other stakeholders.
Website: http://hallambaker.com/