[discuss] [governance] RE: FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?

Sun Mar 23 08:39:11 UTC 2014

On Sunday 23 March 2014 12:22 PM, John Curran wrote:
> On Mar 23, 2014, at 1:47 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>> No, not normal. especially if a particular standards body (1) makes 
>> decisions that are very crucial to public interest, and (2) have no 
>> 'public' oversight mechanism which itself could be ensured to be 
>> fully independent of private funding..... And IETF qualifies by both 
>> criteria.
>
> Parminder -
>    Could you elaborate on the first point?  I'm at a loss how the IETF 
> makes
>    public policy decisions,

I said IETF makes decisions that are very crucial to public interest.  
Are you denying this fact. (I never said it made public policy decisions).

> except in the rare cases where there is a protocol
>    tradeoff which effectively embeds a particular public policy norm 
> into its
>    operation (and these are quite rare)

The opposite is true. It is a relatively rare technical decision that 
does not incorporate a public policy norm.
>
>    For example, the IETF folks (collectively) recognize that there is 
> a norm
>    with regards to personally identifiable information being used in 
> protocols,
>    and hence makes efforts to include an encryption option for those who
>    desire.
>    Given that the IETF protocols are voluntarily used, could explain how
>    "crucial to public interest" decisions happen?

I dont see how they are *not* crucial to public interest - and what has 
the somewhat fictional volutariness of IETF protocols to do with this fact.

>   Aren't governments
>    supposed to engage in laws/rulemaking when there are issues that
>    are crucial to public interest?

Yes, they are. Although many issues of crucial public interest but of 
relatively technical or managerial nature can get delegated, but with 
effective political oversight.

Regards
parminder
>
> Thanks!
> /John
>
> Disclaimer: My views alone.
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140323/ce836547/attachment.html>