SM:
According to (unconfirmed) news articles the CEO of ICANN mentioned that
there's now a "coalition" of the "I*" groups (ICANN, IETF, etc), big-name
companies such as Disney, and governments such as Brazil, focused on creating
multistakeholder solutions to problems such as spam and cyber-bullying.
I have participated in the antispam discussions for some time. I don't
recall seeing anyone from Disney participating in the discussions [1].
According to ICANN there is growing pressures to address issues outside its
sphere of responsibility as a motivating factor in forming a high-level
panel. From an IETF perspective I have some doubts about whether it is a
good idea for the IETF to join a coalition where the IETF Chair would be
signing mission creep [2] statements.
The IETF has been perceived as neutral. It can take a position for or
against the interests of Country X if there is consensus for that. I don't
think that the IETF leaders should rely on the consent of the governed in
taking such a position or create a fait accompli [3].
The IETF leaders [4] have been silent about the topic in the subject line; I
am excluding the help comments about the 1net.org web site. That is not a
good omen for openness.
Regards,
-sm
1. discussions which are open
2. the gradual broadening of the original objectives of a mission or
organization
3. something that has been done and cannot be changed
4. except Jari
First, see the helpful and very informative post from John. (Thanks!)
Second, there are many things happening in the world, some with our involvement
and some without. We also try to get IETF (or IAB or ISOC) involved where it is
necessary, and we try to keep the IETF community informed on everything that is
happening around us.
Montevideo, igovupdate BOF, and the creation of a forum for broader discussion
("1net") are examples of activities that we've been directly involved with.
Brazil and the creation of ICANN's high-level panel are examples of initiatives
that have been taken by others, but which may affect us. For instance, you'll
recognize some names in the panel (Olaf, Lynn, Vint). In addition to
participation, outcomes from both new and existing efforts may have an impact
on our work. And we'll have to develop opinions about relevant topics in those
efforts.
Let me address the case of 1net. As explained before, I believe there is a need
for a place to discuss broader than, say, just within the IETF. Several names
have been given to the effort, but i think the honest description is that it is
intended to be an open place for everyone but almost everything else is
undecided. Including what its vision is, if there's organisation beyond a
mailing list, difference to other organisations such as IGF. As I stated in my
previous e-mail, it would be useful if we (the IETF) came up with opinions
about how such discussion could be best accomplished and what the more specific
goals should be. You could argue that something which is not baked has been
brought into light too early. But maybe that is preferred over, say, some
leaders in various organisations deciding what the model is.
In any case, from IETF perspective whatever statements there may be about
specific countries or companies working together in any new or existing effort
- I say more the merrier. We at the IETF at least should participate in efforts
that are open for everyone to participate. As far as I am aware, we are not in
closed co-operation or agreement with any specific entity (even if we talk with
many parties).
As an aside, I am writing this e-mail in Buenos Aires, while attending an ICANN
meeting. Their community had an extra plenary session yesterday at 7am to
discuss events. The overall feedback to the leadership seemed to be that there
is pretty broad agreement about (a) the situation and need for doing more (b)
currently confusing state of proposals and the role of various new forums.
Jari