At 19:50 31/10/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
But what doesn't help us get on with our work here is discursive
decision of vaguely defined societal or cultural implications.
That's what I was getting at.
Dear Brian,
full agreement. Describing this way the key societal matters at hand
certainly shows the IETF is not interested/competent and does not
intend to invest in them. However the IETF takes leading decisions
meant to influence or constrain SSDO having interest, competence and
responsbility. I suggest we reread RFC 3935's principles of
competence and of responsibility.
There may be/are societal implications of the IAB architecture and of
the IETF technology. The ISTF has been created in parallel to IETF,
IAB, IRTF to discuss them and advise the IAB and the IETF. I submit
we must join forces in reviving the ISTF and the ISSG and that the
ISSG MUST (a) produce a position or an abstain before an RFC or a
Charter is approved by the IESG, (b) be part of the appeal chain.
I think the RFC 3066 bis controversy would have be settled for a long
should the ISSG have reviewed the WG-ltru Charter, published internet
multilingual support requirements, or required an inclusive rather
than a exclusive language tagging during the IESG LC.
jfc
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf