Hi Russ,
At 09:24 09-10-2013, Russ Housley wrote:
This is a statement about what happened at a
meeting. Discussion would not change what
happened at the meeting. Making the statement
very public allows a good discussion of what
should happen next. I look forward to that discussion.
One of the organizations mentioned in the
statement commented about it as follows:
"Internet/Web Organizations Issue Montevideo Statement on the Future
of Internet Cooperation"
"The leaders of organizations responsible for coordination of the Internet
technical infrastructure globally met in Montevideo, Uruguay, to consider
current issues affecting the future of the Internet. They issued today
a Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation, signed by
African Network Information Center (AFRINIC), American Registry for
Internet Numbers (ARIN), Asia-Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC),
Internet Architecture Board (IAB), Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
and Numbers (ICANN), Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), Internet
Society (ISOC), Latin America and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry
(LACNIC), Réseaux IP Européens Network
Coordination Centre (RIPE NCC), W3C."
One of the signatories of the statement mentioned
(if I understood correctly) that the statement was from the organizations.
Is the statement an IAB statement or a statement
from the IAB Chair? Please note that I have read
the message from Andrew (see
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg82926.html ).
I agree that discussion would not change what
happened. I don't think that it is a good idea
to have a "fait accompli" [1] for the IETF
Community to discuss about. It has been said
that "we reject: kings, presidents and
voting". The statement creates the perception
that the leaders of the Internet Architecture
Board and the Internet Engineering Task Force are
like kings or presidents. The Internet
Architecture Board is supposed to be based on
collegial responsibility. I read that as meaning
not to have statements which commits the Internet
Architecture Board to a course of action without
some form of approval from the members of that
Board. Obviously, some form of approval would
not have to be sought if the course of action has been discussed previously.
"The [IAB] board discussed the issue of a joint OpenStand statement or
an IAB specific statement. Many members were against a closed review
period for such a statement and would prefer to have an open discussion
period in the IETF if such a statement was required."
There is a comment on the www.iab.org web site
about "allegations of interference by some
governments in the standards development process"
and a link to an "OpenStand" statement. It seems
that there was a closed review period for the joint OpenStand statement.
I don't think that it is possible to build trust
if openness and transparency are in name only. I
am not enthusiastic about having a discussion
which does not materially affect the outcome.
Regards,
-sm
1. something that has been done and cannot be changed.