On 12/Apr/11 18:31, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Todd,
This is totally confused and you are completely wrong.
Under the Federal Election Campaign Act
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Election_Campaign_Act>, an
organization becomes a "political committee" by receiving
contributions or making expenditures in excess of $1,000 for the
purpose of influencing a federal election
[Source Wikipedia]
Since neither the IETF nor ISOC has any interest in influencing a
federal election, nor does it engage in any activity intended to do
so, it is not a political committee under the terms of the act.
The way politics is currently being done is not necessarily adequate.
Let me just note that the root problem is that we are sharing this
planet among a few billions individuals. That is certainly a
political problem. However, given that communication is potentially
proportional to the square of the communicating parties, it is also a
technical problem. I claim that it is not possible to neatly discern
between political and technical issues, although only one of those
two aspects appears to be dominant in many specific cases. To
justify this claim, suffice it to say that the /amount/ of traffic
has a paramount physical limit, time, whose use cannot be regulated
by any single-sided approach --either political or technical, only.
For an example: spam.
Is it an only-technical problem to devise adequate means for politics?
For the reciprocal question, whether politics should intrude into
technology, the ISOC, talking about the IETF and similar bodies,
recommends that politics do not "assert any authority over those
organizations by any mechanism" [1]. So, how do we tackle spam and
similar issues where neither aspect is prevalent?
1. ISOC's response to NTIA request for comments on IANA functions
http://isoc.org/wp/newsletter/files/2011/03/Internet-Society-Response-Docket.pdf
30 March 2011
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 4:56 PM, todd glassey
<tglassey(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)net
<mailto:tglassey(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)net>> wrote:
On 3/23/2011 12:02 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
On Mar 23, 2011, at 6:52 AM, SM wrote:
The IETF can only address the technical problems.
This is an argument I often hear. I do, however, believe that
you cannot see technology in isolation.
Yeah - sure you can... if you want to be totally about the
original design and practice of the IETF and its vision. It was
built to advance protocol standardization and not to decide what
protocols it would allow on the Internet and which it wouldn't.
But lately many have forgotten this and are using the IETF as a
formal lobby for technological policy advancement and that's a no-no.
Bluntly the IETF members are becoming more and more aggressively
politically and this statement is based on IAB and other
publication on what the IETF does and does not allow through its
frameworks. In doing so their statements about allowing protocols
or not allowing protocols to be standardized based on their stated
perception of "what damages the Internet" or what they personally
want to see as a "free access to all information and ideas" model,
creates a real serious divergence from the Standards Practice this
organization was set up as, and IMHO is one which is designed
clearly to destroy global Intellectual Property law and practice.
However, in many cases the technology, regulatory environment,
business aspects, and the social context gets mixed together.
No Hannes - it doesn't unless the Chair allows it to - meaning
that the Chair in this instance has allowed political materials to
be fielded (filed in this instance) into the IETF and trust me I
am already filing a formal complaint with the Treasury about
ISOC's becoming a formal PAC and its locking out protocol efforts
based on its own desires therein...
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morris-policy-cons-00
I suggest that the Chair immediately post a formal statement that
the IETF is a-political and will not do anything but standardize
technology. Also that ONLY technology drafts can be accepted
since the IETF is part of ISOC and not registered as a political
PAC or Lobbying Agency which it clearly has become in direct
violation of the NTIA MOU which gave it (ISOC and its ARIN) the
real power.
Todd Glassey
Please have a look at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morris-policy-cons-00
Ciao
Hannes
Hannes - this is the issue with the IETF and the gross number of
flaming idiots inside of it. The IETF is not a Social Reform
Agency, nor is it a freaking political action group since its
financial filings prevent this.
Todd Glassey
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf