Hi John, Jorge,
At 06:19 21-11-2013, John Curran wrote:
I'm not an IETF leader, but have had a ringside seat for some of the recent
developments and figured that providing a summary of events might be helpful
to folks on this list for context. I'm simply trying to provide
some framework
in which to consider the recent events (and apologies for length,
but it would
take me weeks to express this all more succinctly.)
Thanks for the substantive response. I consider it as an individual
comment; it keeps the conversation easy.
As has already been noted and discussed, the leadership of several Internet
organizations (ISOC, ICANN, IAB/IETF, IANA, RIRs, W3C, aka "I*") have been
getting together periodically for better coordination. While there have been
statements issued in the past after such meetings, the "Montevideo Statement"
issued after this years meeting (i.e. post-Snowden) made some observations
about the Internet which were fairly obvious but hadn't quite been said in a
clear and consistent manner previously. High-level points include:
- Importance of globally coherent Internet operations
- Concern over Internet fragmentation at a national level
- Strong concern over pervasive monitoring and surveillance
- Ongoing need to address Internet Governance challenges,
- Need for evolution of global multistakeholder Internet cooperation
- Need for globalization of ICANN and IANA functions
- Need to allow all stakeholders (inc. governments) to participate equally
- Need for the transition to IPv6 to remain a top priority globally.
I do not have an opinion about the globalization of ICANN. In my
opinion the IETF protocol parameter registry topic is an IETF
matter. I am aware that there has been calls for globalization of
the IANA function. Internet fragmentation at the national level can
mean many things. I am not aware of any discussions about that
within an IETF context. There has been some discussion about one or
more countries spying on Internet traffic.
It is doubtful whether transition to IPv6 remains a top priority
given the uninspiring results. There has been some related
discussion within an IETF context (see transition thread on this
mailing list).
In some worlds, this might have been the end of it and folks would have all
gone back to their organizations and worked on various pieces of the above...
Yes.
Many of these issues are of interest to parties not participating
today in IETF,
ISOC, ICANN, the RIRs, W3C; furthermore, the collective "I*" organizations are
seen as a narrow segment of society, i.e. often called the "Internet
technical
Yes.
community" when characterized by folks and organizations completely
unaware of how
all of this works, but quite aware that the decisions made by these
organizations
can affect their use of the Internet.
The "Internet technical community" tends to be viewed with
suspicion. If I tell some people who write code that I participate
in the IETF I would be viewed with suspicion. :-)
As much as we're all comfortable working in the existing
organizations, there is a
strong desire for being able to discuss Internet layer 8+ issues in
a forum which
puts everyone in equal basis (i.e. not within "Internet technical
organizations")
There is actually an organization which does a good job of
facilitating discussion
(The Internet Governance Forum, or "IGF") which is chartered under
UN DESA and has
been going on for nearly a decade. One of the frustrations that
everyone has with
the IGF is that it discusses problems, but very intentionally does
not attempt to
drive towards solutions; i.e. it's a forum for sharing views minus
any mechanisms
for developing outcomes. These means that discussions of "Internet
Problems, e.g.
spam, surveillance, child protection, copyright enforcement,
anonymity, botnets/ddos,
privacy, network neutrality, freedom of speech, cybersecurity,
privacy, deep packet
inspection, DNS takedowns, user tracking/cookies, etc., are
discussed without any
clear roadmap emerging for solutions (it's worth noting that some of
these "problems"
are actually features for others folks, all varying based on one's
perspective.)
Thanks for explaining the above. It might help other people
understand that there is a frustration out there because of the
unsolved problems. On an unrelated note you and I may have different
values or outlooks when it comes to, for example, privacy. I don't
think that you are wrong.
Ironically, some of these perceived "Internet Governance challenges"
actually do
have solutions (or if not solutions, at least best practices in how
to cope with
the present realities), and it's lack of communication outside the
Internet orgs
that is really needed to get the word out there. For example, the IETF has a
Yes.
number of BCPs which could help in the mitigation of spam, botnets, and other
problems; unfortunately, availability of these technical solutions is seldom
mentioned when governments, businesses, civil society get together and discuss
"Internet problems". The folks at the Internet Society did a great job noting
The problem, if I can call it that, is the technical solutions are
mentioned from a U.S. mindset. Instead of thinking of what a great
job the IETF is doing I would look at it as how can the IETF help out.
problems, i.e. what is now being called the "1net" initiative. (To insert a
personal view, I do believe that having a neutral forum where we can better
engage outside of the "Internet Technical community" on Internet issues is a
very good thing, particularly if it leads to collaboration with governments
rather than having them go elsewhere and make unilateral decisions in this
areas...)
Yes.
I hope this explains a little bit about the Montevideo Statement and "1net"
(at least as I best understand it.) When someone asks me what
"1net" is about,
I believe that it is intended to be a neutral, community-based initiative to
discuss Internet problems towards potential collaborative solutions. I have
absolutely no idea which topics might get picked up for
consideration (and that
is truly unknowable until there still needs to be a Steering Committee seated)
but it is my expectation that "1net" will help promote existing IETF
technical
solutions (or potentially identify needs for additional IETF
technical solutions)
to the extent that its discussions touch on Internet
protocols. Similarly, it
should not represent a change in mission for any of the
organizations that get
involved; it's just intended as way of connecting problems and
solutions, i.e.
it's a mechanism "for evolution of global multistakeholder Internet
cooperation"
Community-based initiatives do not work if there isn't buy-in from
the community. That requires some effort. It does not work well if,
in practice, it masks the sponsors to give the appearance that the
message is coming from disinterested people.
At 07:43 21-11-2013, Jorge Amodio wrote:
There are two assumptions that I'm not 100% convinced are entirely true
1- That a new supra entity will be ever able to deliver any
solutions for level 8+ issues that please all when on the equal
basis argument some will lobby to be more equal than others
Yes.
2- That using ICANN as a reference, the multistakeholder model works
reasonably well to be expanded
That would be like using the 1net.org web site as a reference. :-)
Regards,
-sm