Mr. Smith goes to the IETF

As far I am concerned, the PR-action engaged against me by Harald 
Alvestrand is per se of no interest. I just have some general 
comments and one question about it, I will address separately.
What is more interesting is how the IETF and the Internet community 
may benefit from the three issues I raise: multilingualism, ethic and 
user QA. The three of them have an architectural impact (the IAB 
should be able to address through the now silent IAB-discuss) and are 
part of a wide "governance" change which question the RFC 3935 IETF 
mission. These three questions (ethic and user QA being related in 
part) are now under final escalation to the IAB.

At the present time, published contributions (Sam Hartman, John 
Klensin, Harald Alvstrand) agree with me: filibustering, however a 
democratic US invention, is a pest. IETF should do everything not to 
need it (much more efficient than to fight it). I think my 
contributions are of interest to consider in this area. I suppose all 
the PESCI member are already on the two copied lists.

1. due to the importance of the "war on culture" 
"internationalization" represents, I was proposed support and funding 
to oppose it. The problem are an architectural layer violation, a 
narrow vision and a lack of information. Not a lack of competence. To 
kill the IETF for that was inadequate (or premature). I am already a 
problem, would we have been two or three of us ... Had we been 200 as 
I was proposed ... I have computed that $ 20.000 are enough to block 
the IETF. This can be discussed, but this is something we should 
urgently consider, when political, commercial and civil rights 
interests make the IETF, and most of all the IANA, a key target (the 
USG says for sale- may be to protect it?).
I refused it.

2. I proposed Brian Carpenter to get "would be filibusters" a special 
status in the consensus process as "user QA rep". With rights and duties.
This was denied.

3. I proposed an evolution in the WG working method. In using 
position links: every contributor expresses his positions on a page 
he can update as the debate goes. I proposed this to the GNSO 
WG-Review which supported it and I use it in some work. This filters 
out "standard" participants' blabla. It permits everyone to stay, 
every concept to be documented and progressively trimmed, and 
external experts to call in. Consensus is when all the positions are 
equivalent or have identified they cannot agree. Consensus review is 
easy and informative.
This was not considered.

4. I have engaged an IESG, and now an IAB appeal, to know if this 
kind of debate is, or not, part of  the IETF. IESG said "no". I want 
a confirmation by the IAB (so no one can claim there is a conflict) 
before engaging into the organisation of a solution. My solution is a 
dedicated TF sharing into the Internet standard process and reviewing 
the Charters and the Drafts during the LC, or upon request. That TF 
would permanently interact with the users. I think it can be engaged 
in ethic (COI and societal impact) and "governance" issues. The 
interest is that there can be several TF until one emerges as a 
stable and productive solution. I would favor it to be eventually 
part of ISOC and to interface (and protect the IETF from) the IGF.
This is under final consideration. Interested people can share in a Draft.


This IETF has to understand that the Internet has become mature. 
Mature for a product - and specially for a communication technology - 
is when the technology is no more the leader but when usage decides. 
This is what they call "governance". This means that the IGF is going 
to deliver scores of Jefseys. Engineers who can code user response as 
per the user' requests (far more complex than what IETF does today). 
The NSF GENI project will not be alone.
I still consider there is a difference between specifying (Charter) 
and documenting (WG work). But most, because they will be from 
Lobbies or Govs, will not bother. This will lead to balkanization and 
to IETF bottle necks. Already, I saw that with the lobby driven 
WG-LTRU: the Charter was not considered. WG Consensus by exhaustion, 
IETF consensus by disinterest and IESG consensus by impossible 
knowledge of everything lead to dispute like the one I have with 
Harald. There will be scores of them soon if we do not find a 
structural solution.
jfc


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf