At 16:59 03-01-2013, Tony Hain wrote:
other. How long the IETF gets to stay independent of that will depend on how
responsive it is to meeting the needs of governments. If short-sighted
attempts at political maneuvering are exposed in the IETF, it will lose its
independence and finally bring that process under 'proper control'.
The IAB has a nominated a representative to the European
Multi-Stakeholder Platform on ICT Standardisation. It also commented
on the (U.S) Federal Participation in the Development and Use of
Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment
Activities. The government interaction is basically between the IETF
and the E.U. or the U.S. I do not recall any cases (in recent times)
where the E.U. or the U.S. has pressured the IETF to support or
oppose a decision.
The IETF used to be set up in such a way that putting it under
"proper control" would be quite an effort.
It would be wise for the IETF participants to look at the countries that did
sign, and why. What is it that they are not getting that they need, and how
can that be resolved? To echo Day's point, it is the capability they
want/need, not the historical implementation. Some things that are business
Yes.
At 09:24 04-01-2013, Ted Hardie wrote:
In this new effort at a multilateral framework, we are seeing a
clash between a desire for sovereign control of the Internet and a
desire to reap the benefits of open participation. I think our role
in that is to make sure all involved understand: the benefits of
the Internet's network effect; the risks in allowing nations through
which traffic passes to assert sovereignty over the flows,
especially given both the pace and chance of topological change; and
the reality that entities outside of governments control the paths
that packets actual traverse.
A few years ago sourceforge.net blocked all users from a specific
country from downloading files hosted on their site. There was a
case where a country had its say on one or more domain names through
unusual means. Some of that can be perceived as assertions of sovereignty.
Regards,
-sm