Re: ***UNCHECKED*** Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Jari,
At 11:17 19-11-2013, Jari Arkko wrote:
However, while the site is coming up, it would be useful to think about the kinds of things that could be usefully discussed. There are obviously many specific issues which belong to already existing organisations. Such as protocol parameter registry topic being an IETF/IAB matter, TLD assignments an ICANN matter, etc. There's little reason to create new places to discuss such topics. On the other hand, it would probably be good to have a place to discuss the overall situation, relate work in different organisations to each other, build more co-operation, etc. What are your thoughts on this? What topics do you think need additional attention?

According to (unconfirmed) news articles the CEO of ICANN mentioned that there's now a "coalition" of the "I*" groups (ICANN, IETF, etc), big-name companies such as Disney, and governments such as Brazil, focused on creating multistakeholder solutions to problems ­ such as spam and cyber-bullying.

I have participated in the antispam discussions for some time. I don't recall seeing anyone from Disney participating in the discussions [1]. According to ICANN there is growing pressures to address issues outside its sphere of responsibility as a motivating factor in forming a high-level panel. From an IETF perspective I have some doubts about whether it is a good idea for the IETF to join a coalition where the IETF Chair would be signing mission creep [2] statements.

The IETF has been perceived as neutral. It can take a position for or against the interests of Country X if there is consensus for that. I don't think that the IETF leaders should rely on the consent of the governed in taking such a position or create a fait accompli [3].

The IETF leaders [4] have been silent about the topic in the subject line; I am excluding the help comments about the 1net.org web site. That is not a good omen for openness.

Regards,
-sm

1. discussions which are open
2. the gradual broadening of the original objectives of a mission or organization
3. something that has been done and cannot be changed
4. except Jari





[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]