Re: IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission

Dean Anderson wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, mark seery wrote:
>
>  
>
> > Trust model
> > =========
> >
> > Inherent in Eric's problem statement is the notion that end systems have
> > the ability to impact the experience other Internet users have. Whether
> > this is the result of an historical trust model, where people using the
> > Internet were assumed to a) have clue and b) be acting in the best
> > interests of the community, or whether this is the result of other
> > community values, this diserves comment/debate, IMHO.
> >    
> I've noticed that the people who claim to have the most clue, frequently
> don't,
"...most imposters are desperate to prove that they are not what they 
are..." - Katherine Hepburn, Love Story
that said, no one has clue in everything, and in almost any one thing, 
there is almost always some one with more clue, so this too is relative.
> and the people who claim most to be acting in the interests of the
> community, aren't.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."  - Samuel Johnson.

that said there is a lot that is instructive about listening to the 
ghosts from the past. lessons in open processes as an immutable value 
for example.
> Clue has to do with being right, and time always reveals who and what is
> right.  It is not always immediately apparent who is right. But the one
> with the "clue" will be shown to have been right later on
But the assasination has usually taken place by then. The lesson of 
almost any complex society is dare to be different, and the gods will 
exact their revenge. It takes people of courage, stupidty or independent 
wealth to truly express what they think. That is why secret ballots 
exist in many democracies - it allows a broader range of non-stupid 
people to express their opinion (all beit on a narrow decision criteria).
> Community has to do with democratic, common interests. It is always
> interesting that the people who are most shrill about "the interests
> community" often want to exclude most of the community from the decision.
Common interests I agree, which I think is probably the crux of the 
mission discussion. Whether a "statement" or any other single instrument 
is sufficient to cross this bridge is fair game for discussion. But 
undoubtely, IMHO, it is the definition, articulation, and recognition of 
what the common interest is that is the problem at hand. For example, I 
don't think IEEE 802.3 have any problems understanding what their common 
interest is - the propogation of Ethernet technology - with no qualms 
about the commercial realities of that common interest.
What is the common interest of the IETF? Packets to the people? The 
propogation and use of IP (including Eric's expression of migrating 
applications from other technologies)? The refinement and perfection of 
connectionless networking techology? The development/standardization of 
technologies that address as many networking problem spaces as possible 
forming an umbrella under which we can throw many things by calling it 
the "Internet"?
So yes Dean, I think you elude to the central issue - what is the common 
interest, and as the community was propelled almost forceably, and 
inexorably by market forces from a world where as Randy put it 
"operators cooperated" together, in a non-commercial endeavor based on 
very non-commercial values, into a very commercial world, did the 
community ever have a chance to take a big breath, inspect what has 
happened, and where it really wants to go from here.
Given the seeminly overloaded semantics of "mission" perhaps a statement 
of "common interest" would indeed be more beneficial.
As for the democratic bit, I have been giving a lot of thought recently 
to what a democracy is or should be - as such I am not sure what 
democratic is, so I leave that piece as an exercise to the reader.
Best,......