To help better understanding the Internet Governance technical
context/contest, I started this thread is quotting authoritative positions:
- Europe
http://www.publictechnology.net/article_avantgo.php?sid=3877
- Peace Nobel Price
http://newsfromrussia.com/world/2005/10/06/64579.html
I continue with the UN General Secretary.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/04/AR2005110401431.html
The debate so far leads me to think that the appropriate solution is,
either the revival within ISOC, or the start outside ISOC (them to
decide), of the ISTF/ISSG, as a way to represent the societal demand
through a technical language the IETF/IESG can understand and work
on. Societal, commercial and political issues are necessary parts of
the demand.
They could be discussed on this main IETF list and on WGs lists. But
they are no part if the engineering debate itself and could
legitimately lead to what IETF participants would consider as DoS
(there is no reason to technically discuss the way to implement a
societal mistake or a commercial bias). A structural split between
the technical debate and the societal/commercial/political debate is
therefore advisable.
I note there is a real urgency to this. The aftermath of the Tunis
submit may lead to exacerbated positions as some demands, foreign to
the usual IETF vision, will have received international backing.
This would represent minor additions to the Internet standard
process. They could be:
1. WG charters and RFCs should be commented by ISSG before approval.
2. BCPs should be co-approved by the ISSG
3. ISTF should organise a WG per IETF areas and get a member as a
correspondant in each WG for good coordination.
4. there should be a "societal considerations" part in every Internet
document.
5. ISTF should one way or another share in the QA of the IETF
deliverables, among others via testing and links to running codes.
6. possibility for any IETF entity, group or participant to call on
the ISTF for guidance.
7. the publication of societal framework documents on major issues
such as IPv6 address allocation, multicultural support, usage
architecture, etc.
I am ready to write a Internet standard process BCP Draft on the
issue. With who is interested.
Unless Brian would see it as a part of the PESCI process?
jfc
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf