[discuss] A thought experiment - what follows the 'IANA transition?'

[Shatan, Gregory S.]

No.

Greg Shatan

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of michael gurstein
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 3:55 PM
To: 'S Moonesamy'; parminder at itforchange.net; 'Alejandro Pisanty'
Cc: discuss at 1net.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] A thought experiment - what follows the 'IANA transition?'

So, is it the sense of this discussion that the items mentioned by Moonesamy below are the appropriate extent of application of the "multistakeholder model" for Global (Internet) Policy decision-making and that other strategies for organizing decision making processes are required in the other areas.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: S Moonesamy [mailto:sm+1net at elandsys.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 12:38 PM
To: gurstein at gmail.com; parminder at itforchange.net; Alejandro Pisanty
Cc: discuss at 1net.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] A thought experiment - what follows the 'IANA transition?'

Hi Mike,
At 11:09 02-04-2014, michael gurstein wrote:
>It might be interesting and useful to know (as an extension of the
>thought experiment for example) which of the issues listed below
>various colleagues thought might be applicable to IETF type
>multistakeholder decision making processes and which might not
>(recognizing that multistakeholder consultation processes will have
>value in a much broader range of issue areas).

I am not sure about the meaning of "IETF type multistakeholder decision making processes".  I'll comment on some of the issues which were listed.

There was a research group (not in the IETF) working on spam.  The group spent many years on that problem and did not produce anything.  There is a government agency which tried to get a group in the IETF to work on solving spam-related problems.  There was
(informal) agreement to take that problem to the ITU as the communication model being proposed was better suited for that organization [1].  There is an ITU Study Group working on countering spam [2].

There were IETF working groups which worked on internationalization.  The working groups have been closed as they completed their work.

There is some ongoing work in an IETF working group which is related to exchanging information about security incidents.  That might be related to "cybercrime".

There are always technical choices.  If I participate in the IETF I would follow http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026 Some of these technical choices can affect the security of the internet [3].  I suggest subscribing to the IETF discussion list [4] (if you are not already subscribed) if you are interested in technical choices or the security of the internet.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. This is from my memory.  I suggest treating it as unreliable information.
2. http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/about/groups/Pages/sg17.aspx
3. There are other venues in which technical choices relating to the security of the internet are discussed.
4. https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss



                                                                * * *

This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered
confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in
error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply
e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or
use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other
person. Thank you for your cooperation.

                                                                * * *

To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we
inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax
advice contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is not
intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1)
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state
and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another
party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
                                                                        Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00