SM:
> 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
First, see the helpful and very informative post from John. (Thanks!)
Second, there are many things happening in the world, some with our involvement and some without. We also try to get IETF (or IAB or ISOC) involved where it is necessary, and we try to keep the IETF community informed on everything that is happening around us.
Montevideo, igovupdate BOF, and the creation of a forum for broader discussion ("1net") are examples of activities that we've been directly involved with. Brazil and the creation of ICANN's high-level panel are examples of initiatives that have been taken by others, but which may affect us. For instance, you'll recognize some names in the panel (Olaf, Lynn, Vint). In addition to participation, outcomes from both new and existing efforts may have an impact on our work. And we'll have to develop opinions about relevant topics in those efforts.
Let me address the case of 1net. As explained before, I believe there is a need for a place to discuss broader than, say, just within the IETF. Several names have been given to the effort, but i think the honest description is that it is intended to be an open place for everyone but almost everything else is undecided. Including what its vision is, if there's organisation beyond a mailing list, difference to other organisations such as IGF. As I stated in my previous e-mail, it would be useful if we (the IETF) came up with opinions about how such discussion could be best accomplished and what the more specific goals should be. You could argue that something which is not baked has been brought into light too early. But maybe that is preferred over, say, some leaders in various organisations deciding what the model is.
In any case, from IETF perspective whatever statements there may be about specific countries or companies working together in any new or existing effort - I say more the merrier. We at the IETF at least should participate in efforts that are open for everyone to participate. As far as I am aware, we are not in closed co-operation or agreement with any specific entity (even if we talk with many parties).
As an aside, I am writing this e-mail in Buenos Aires, while attending an ICANN meeting. Their community had an extra plenary session yesterday at 7am to discuss events. The overall feedback to the leadership seemed to be that there is pretty broad agreement about (a) the situation and need for doing more (b) currently confusing state of proposals and the role of various new forums.
Jari