There is already an ISOC blog.
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
To be fair, the IACR, ACM etc are professional organizations; we the IETF are not. Professional organizations (cf your state bar association, the American Medical Association and the like) are all about standardizing people, not things. As such, they are more able to come up with a consistent public message.On 1/30/2017 11:53 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 1/30/17 7:30 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
but sadly, i do not think the ietf has the guts and the vision to evenOver the years it has become clear that being a consensus-oriented
do what an organization such as the iacr, crypto assn which has long
experience with real politik etc. has done, [ ... ]
organization with a diverse participation makes it impossible for
the IETF to make statements like this. It would need to come from the
chair, the IAB chair, or the I*. (Yes, I think this is a problem)
Melinda
To expect us to be able to behave like one of them without a restructuring to become one of them is probably wishful thinking. Becoming one of them would probably be detrimental to our main mission of improving the internet.
We are associated with two organizations that are, by charter, mostly outward facing: the IAB and the ISOC. The latter organization is probably the right one to take point on statements of mostly political content related to issues that affect our mission. I would like to suggest that we (the IAB and IESG and IETF Chair) request the ISOC draft a message along the lines of what the ACM and IACR and others have already written. This would include such details as the affect on the IETF's meetings and the ISOC's outreach program and would ask them to incorporate suggestions from the IETF community on content (but leaving the wording to ISOC). I'd also suggest they provide a signature page where IETF community members may endorse the ISOC message.
I would further suggest that a faster but not perfect note is better than the alternative.
Mike