+1 On 14 okt 2013, at 17:20, Harald Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > For what it's worth, I think Russ and Jari did the right thing in signing the statement the way they did, at the time they did it, with the prior consultation they did. > > I was not consulted. And I'm glad they are capable of acting at this level without consulting me. > > > > On 10/11/2013 06:02 PM, John Curran wrote: >> Folks - >> >> As a result of the Internet's growing social and economic importance, the underlying >> Internet structures are receiving an increasing level of attention by both governments >> and civil society. The recent revelations regarding US government surveillance of >> the Internet are now greatly accelerating government attention on all of the Internet >> institutions, the IETF included. All of this attention is likely bring about significant >> changes in the Internet ecosystem, potentially including how the IETF interacts with >> governments, civil society, and other Internet organizations globally. >> >> In my personal view, it is a very important for the IETF to select leadership who can >> participate in any discussions that occur, and it would further be prudent for the IETF >> leaders to be granted a sufficient level of support by the community to take positions >> in those discussions and make related statements, to the extent the positions and >> the statements are aligned with established IETF positions and/or philosophy. >> >> The most interesting part of the myriad of Internet Governance discussions is that >> multiple organizations are all pushing ahead independently from one another, which >> results in a very dynamic situation where we often don't even know that there will be >> a conference or meeting until after its announced, do not know auspices under which >> it will be held, nor what the scope of the discussions held will ultimately be. However, >> the failure of any of the Internet organizations to participate will not actually prevent >> consideration of a variety of unique and colorful proposals for improving the Internet >> and/or the IETF, nor will it preclude adoption even in the absence of IETF input... >> >> The IETF is a very important Internet institution, and it deserves to be represented >> in any discussions which might propose changes to the fundamental mechanisms of >> Internet cooperation. It would be a wonderful world indeed if all of these discussions >> started with submission of an Internet Draft and discussion on open mailing lis, but >> that hasn't been the modus operandi of governments and is probably too much to >> realistically expect. >> >> /John >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail