On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 11:54 AM Kyle Rose <krose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Yup. They know where to find us. Our standards development process is very open. > > I imagine there are few participants who would be in favor of privileged access or powers given to governments: I certainly would be vehemently opposed to any such change in our processes. I would also be opposed to any such change, but for completeness, ICANN has the GAC - Governmental Advisory Committee. While the GAC is an advisory committee[0], it holds special privilege - see the bylaws for details: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article12 W [0]: like the Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC), Security and Stability Advisory Committee[1] (SSAC), At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) [1]: Full disclosure: on which I serve. > > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2020, 9:35 AM Eliot Lear <lear=40cisco.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On 16 Mar 2020, at 16:29, Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola=40open-xchange.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> It formulates (section 8.1) six recommendations, of which the sixth is specifically aimed at the IETF and other Internet standards organizations: >> >> "Standardisation processes are advised to include a consultation phase with government and industry policy makers, and civil society experts.” >> >> >> >> Individuals from governments, industry policy makers, and civil society experts are welcome to participate in all IETF community activities, at draft conception, working group formation or assignment, working group adoption, working group development, IETF last call, and then errata/updates to that work. All that is required is an email account. >> >> Eliot >> >> -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf
