At 8:15 AM -0400 8/4/02, Melinda Shore wrote:
> Not sure what your point is.
"Let me draw you a map."
Just because something is interesting or important or smells
wonderful doesn't mean that this is the correct forum for
discussing it. I agree with Caitlin that this is not the
right place to be holding a political discussion about an
external body.
Melinda
+++++++++
Hi Melinda --
The root problem with your analysis is that the IETF/IAB had a large
role in the establishment of ICANN and in blessing its actions.
So here I will redraw your map to include some critical omissions.
In fact, the issue of IAB blessing the formation of ICANN in the first
place was specifically and formally discussed on this IETF list as a
formal action in gaining a so called broad consensus of the working
group level of the IETF for blessing the formation of ICANN with its
initial mission which has led to the current situation.
So, it is now appropriate for this mailing list to review the results
and to discuss the issues that have therefrom arisen, whether the
issue is formally placed on the agenda of this list or not. The IAB
put this issue here, and here it shall remain until it is somehow
taken off.
What you do not seem to see is that the IETF/IAB long ago slipped into
being political in nature, and there is nothing anyone can do about it
short of having a political discussion here on the question of
whether or not the IETF/IAB should be involved in political
activities. The simple fact is that the IETF is active in political
affairs.
It was the deliberate actions of the IAB at the Chicago IETF to
secure IETF blessings for the formation of ICANN that conclusively
led me to end my long period of IETF meeting attendance. The current
outcome of those actions are what we now see unfolding.
It is important to note that the appointment (selection?) of the IETF
sponsored member of the ICANN Board of Directors is announced and
discussed here, to the extent that it enjoys any public discussion.
Therefore, the IETF/IAB bears some responsibility for the current
situation. Is there any report of the actions of the IETF/IAB
selected member of the ICANN BoD? Such might exist, but if so, I
have missed seeing it or any notice there-of.
So, I now wish to ask you a basic question:
Are you objecting to the way the past political actions of the
IETF/IAB have turned out (e.g., the ICANN MESS) or advocating the
concept that the IETF should now somehow cease being a political
action organization.
Or are you just upset to find out what has been and is really going
on here? The problem is that getting out of this situation requires
open political discussion somewhere in a designated IETF forum. This
assumes that the IETF participants now want to get out of their
political role.
Among other things, the IETF/IAB leaders who got us into this mess
are no longer in a position to control the outcome, so perhaps the
current leadership might find a way to declare a withdrawal, but to
do so will require continued political discussion somewhere...
The unfortunate fact is that we are where we are because of past
actions that cannot now be erased, or ignored. So, there are some
really critical issues that need to be discussed somewhere, perhaps
in a new incarnation of the POISED WG that sorted out the issues of
the great Boston Tea Party a decade ago. Those were clearly
political issues.
It is hard in the world of the Internet, where the results of IETF
technical decisions lead to major disruptions of the social and
economic activities of the world, to totally ignore those
disruptions as though they are not attributable to the IETF/IAB.
I suspect it is going to take another Boston Tea Party inspired
"poised" kind of effort to right the overturned canoe. Perhaps you
can get this issue placed on the next open IETF or IAB plenary
session at the next IETF meeting. Perhaps the poised WG should be
convened every 10 years to review the situation that has resulted
from to previous Poised effort.
10 years appears to be a natural period of the natural Internet
paradigmatic shift cycle. The issues that the IETF now works on have
obvious political outcomes, whether you like politics or not. The
new paradigmatic shift that is occurring has risen above the
technical base to impact the whole realm of interpersonal trust and
the problem of inducing trust in across the Internet. So, at this
point, the issue of whether we can or should trust ICANN, or anyone
else with our future is on the table. We can deal with it, or ignore
it. We have a choice.
Another factor is that a significant number of ICANN advocates are
still with us here in this list, and it is unlikely that they will go
away because of your call for removal of political issues from
discussion here.
Actually my bet is that they will try to stifle open discussion of
these issues here if they do not like the direction that discussion
takes. But, they are the ones that made this bed, so they should be
among the ones to sleep in it.
So, quite frankly, I do not know how to suggest extraction of the
IETF from current political discussions in an open IETF discussion
list.
Maybe some of the IETF leadership team can think of a way.
I suspect it will require some kind of fresh start.
Clearly the IETF has come to a major turning point in its history.
Cheers...\Stef