Harald,
you want to feed "your favorite troll" in pretending that I accuse
you of the contrary of why I oppose your doctrine .... This was fun a
short while. Now it tend to be boring. Exposing that you are in the
lead and do not understand our position on what is at hand, was my
target. Because of your RFC 3935 principle of competence: "we are
also constrained by the principle of competence: Where we do not
have, and cannot gather, the competence needed to make technically
sound standards, we should not attempt to take the leadership.
I agree and respect you for your positions and achievements, except
over globalisation and the nature of the Internet. You want to
exclude my position, I want to include yours everywhere it applies.
No need for you and you cosignatories of a childish pamphlet to hurt
more your/their image over this. Clever people have understood this
for a long.
This being said (hopefully for the last time) ...
At 10:05 29/10/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
What people do with technology may have good or bad effects.
That is well understood by all technologists, I think.
But this is not the place to discus the social impact
of our technology.
The Internet standard process disagrees with this: possible bad
effects MUST be discussed in security considerations.
But the IETF is not a place to organise social impacts through the
technology. It MUST not be used as a tool to advance social changes
along with political, commercial or private agenda. Otherwise the
IETF will also become a place where social impacts will have to be
prevented, while it has no adequate mechanism for that.
Since the "constitution is in the code", the IETF MUST make sure the
code stays open and provides fair technical support to every societal
needs and orientation, and equal opportunity to all without
discrimination and exclusive. This is usually warranted by three
successive consensuses (WG, IETF, IESG).
I therefore hope the effort engaged by Brian succeeds to address WG
consensus by exhaustion, IETF consensus by abstention and IESG
consensus by overload. Also that IAB's effort permits, may be not
architectural changes, but at least cultural changes in the IETF
vision of the Internet, to consider the diversity of the 6.5 billions
potential users, before the 4200 RFCs.
jfc
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf