Dear Mr de Natris,
At 03:57 AM 20-03-2020, Wout de Natris wrote:
Thank you for discussing the report in your community. As main
author of the report. There are three things I would like to stress:
1) This is not a U.N. commissioned report, but a pilot within the
Internet Governance Forum to test whether the IGF is able to
accelerate a long lasting internet governance issue instead of
debating it once a year and go home.. To go beyond the "talkshop", a
long held wish of representatives from the Dutch technical
community. The topic of choice became deployment of internet
standards: e.g. DNSSEC, RPKI and BCP38, but also the OWASP top 10,
ISO 27001 and secure software;
2) The report does not focus on nor passes any judgement on IETF's
or on any other standards bodies' internal procedures. It focuses on
how to disseminate the outcomes better, spread knowledge in an
understandable language for non-technicians and to deploy the widely
agreed upon standards faster. The comments made about the IETF were
made by individuals participating in IETF processes, thinking out
loud about how the goal of the report could be achieved;
3) The recommendations and steps forward are aggregated opinions
from the hundreds of people that took the questionnaire,
participated in the break out sessions at the Berlin IGF, from
interviews and desk research. From them the authors compiled what we
called "pressure points".
Thank you for explanation about the report. It is positive to see
that the Dutch technical community is interested in taking matters
beyond what is described as a "talkshop". In my opinion, having a
discussion venue where entities can openly explain the issues which
they encountered has some value. I had a few cordial discussions
with parliamentarians during the Berlin Internet Governance Forum.
One of the issues which may affect deployment is how to get the
agreement of entities, which are known as "network operators", to do
something. Another issue is the lack of evidence of the
effectiveness of existing policies related to standards.
I was intrigued by the suggestion about a policy incubator. Would
that be a departure from the unique multistakeholder platform?
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
