There are really two questions, what should we do and what can they make
us do?
As I suggested to Harald when this came up last year. Why not just let
them take over the IETF lock stock and barrel?
The only effect that would have is that there would be an immediate
defection of the Working Groups to an organization with a different
title but essentially the same people running it. We might see some
overdue organizational reforms in the process such as the replacement of
NOMCON with direct elections, we would be forced to face the fact that
the RFC editorship and IANA models are antiquated but that would be all.
The IETF is not the only standards organization that influences the
Internet. That is not a bad thing at all.
The real question is what influence the rump legacy IETF would have.
They would control IANA and the RFC editorship but that is all. The RFC
editorship could and should be replaced by an automated submission
system.
IANA is only needed because the IETF insists on designing protocols that
assume the existence of fixed allocation registries. Well MIME type
allocations do entirely well despite the fact that official IANA
registered types are a small fraction of the total. SRV entry point
registrations work fine too, the IANA registry is considerably smaller
and less authoritative than the unofficial one.
So one thing that we should do is to stop trying to force protocol
design into a mold the preserves IANA control. If we insist that the
only way to extend the DNS is through IANA RR assignments then whoever
controls IANA controls the net. Fortunately cutting new DNS RRs is
completely unnecessary. Prefixes work just as well if you are prepared
to let them (the silly argument made in the IAB paper is not true).
The defense side is fine but that does not mean that the IETF can or
should ignore diplomacy. The issues that the Brazillians and the
Egyptians have raised are not without justification. The W3C does not
have this problem despite being larger and more active. This is because
the W3C has been much better at convincing people that it is open and
considers the issues raised by non-US, non-European Internet users just
as seriously as domestic ones.
I agree that this is not the real problem with the IETF the truth is
that US and European Internet users are also ignored. The situation is
unfortuately engineering for engineers. If you allow a bunch of
engineers to create their ideal working conditions they would allow
unlimited scope for technical excellence with no hard deadlines and no
need to ever interact with the actual customers.
Diplomacy requires a change in this approach. It is as important to be
seen to listen as to listen. The IETF does not have a formal process for
active listening. That is the work that I think the IAB should be doing.
The big problem here is that the W3C has a large budget to fund its
listening activities. The IETF does not. Some imagination is needed
here. Perhaps a series of regional conferences/round table discussions.
The issues raised by the Brazillians are valid, the issues raised by
Iran are not. Here there is a larger context of geo-politics that I
don't want to get into and I think will be temporary in any case.
What cannot be negotiable is the introduction of any technology into the
Internet to enable or facilitate government control of its users. The
Web was designed to give dictators a choice: if you want to be part of
the rich industrialized world you have to allow relatively unfettered
access to information that will inevitably undermine authoritarian
government. This has worked in practice, the great firewall is really
just a face saving device, the authorities know that the real threat to
their rule comes from inside the country. The question is how to manage
a peaceful transition.
William Gibson once called cyberspace a consensual illusion. The
description is also appropriate for government, kings only exist where
there are courtiers willing to bow down to them.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf