SM:
Each of these leaders comes from a different organization, and each of these
organizations grants their leaders different degrees of autonomy. So, the
amount of coordination that was done differs for each. In all cases, there was
one business day to do the coordination.
In my case, I shared the draft statement with the whole IAB, stating my
intention to include my name and role at the bottom of the statement. I asked
for no wordsmithing because ten organizations were simultaneously handling the
statement in their own way.
Russ
On Oct 9, 2013, at 3:27 PM, SM wrote:
Hi Russ,
At 09:24 09-10-2013, Russ Housley wrote:
This is a statement about what happened at a meeting. Discussion would not
change what happened at the meeting. Making the statement very public
allows a good discussion of what should happen next. I look forward to that
discussion.
One of the organizations mentioned in the statement commented about it as
follows:
"Internet/Web Organizations Issue Montevideo Statement on the Future
of Internet Cooperation"
"The leaders of organizations responsible for coordination of the Internet
technical infrastructure globally met in Montevideo, Uruguay, to consider
current issues affecting the future of the Internet. They issued today
a Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation, signed by
African Network Information Center (AFRINIC), American Registry for
Internet Numbers (ARIN), Asia-Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC),
Internet Architecture Board (IAB), Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
and Numbers (ICANN), Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), Internet
Society (ISOC), Latin America and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry
(LACNIC), Réseaux IP Européens Network Coordination Centre (RIPE NCC), W3C."
One of the signatories of the statement mentioned (if I understood correctly)
that the statement was from the organizations.
Is the statement an IAB statement or a statement from the IAB Chair? Please
note that I have read the message from Andrew (see
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg82926.html ).
I agree that discussion would not change what happened. I don't think that
it is a good idea to have a "fait accompli" [1] for the IETF Community to
discuss about. It has been said that "we reject: kings, presidents and
voting". The statement creates the perception that the leaders of the
Internet Architecture Board and the Internet Engineering Task Force are like
kings or presidents. The Internet Architecture Board is supposed to be based
on collegial responsibility. I read that as meaning not to have statements
which commits the Internet Architecture Board to a course of action without
some form of approval from the members of that Board. Obviously, some form
of approval would not have to be sought if the course of action has been
discussed previously.
"The [IAB] board discussed the issue of a joint OpenStand statement or
an IAB specific statement. Many members were against a closed review
period for such a statement and would prefer to have an open discussion
period in the IETF if such a statement was required."
There is a comment on the www.iab.org web site about "allegations of
interference by some governments in the standards development process" and a
link to an "OpenStand" statement. It seems that there was a closed review
period for the joint OpenStand statement.
I don't think that it is possible to build trust if openness and transparency
are in name only. I am not enthusiastic about having a discussion which does
not materially affect the outcome.
Regards,
-sm
1. something that has been done and cannot be changed.