On 14:14 17/11/2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand said:
The IETF standards process is not supposed to be affected by this
reorganization (except, hopefully, by having better support). I agree that
the IETF standards process needs to have participation from users, but
doing so through management of the support infrastructure would be
*significantly* convoluted....
This is not what I have in mind. What I have in mind is something
equivalent to GAC in ICANN or IAB in the IETF structure. IAB has identified
it needed the users money (Govs are the leading users), the same as ICANN
has identified they needed Gov support (Stuarts call). The simplest and the
least risky way is to suggest a "usage forum" (what ISOC should be/is?)
that would have with the IETF the _only_ tie of a common secretariat. Any
other way (at an "higher political layer") implies risks of interference
with the Internet standard process. Through a common administrative support
(secretariat) they will be able to channel suggestions and comments but
only in respecting the Internet standard process. IMHO this is our best
protection against ITU creep.
This calls for a non-committing paragraph to open the possibility of this
administrative plug, and see if something develops. The problem you face
otherwise is the way to interface and finance the interface of a global
network user/consumer committee which could result from Tunis. In
initiating the move, you better keep it under control. In being ready to
plug a network usage advisory board with similar relations as to the IAB,
you have modified nothing, and offered in you own terms what big users will
ask for and obtain from others creating IETF a big pain.
jfc
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf