[discuss] Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?

[parminder]

This is what IETF's own RFC 3869 says

"The principal thesis of this document is that if commercial funding   is the main source of funding for future Internet research, the    future of the Internet infrastructure could be in trouble.
  In    addition to issues about which projects are funded, the funding source can also affect the content of the research, for example,   towards or against the development of open standards, or taking
    varying degrees of care about the effect of the developed protocols   on the other traffic on the Internet."


It is important to recognise that research is not a monopoly function, 
but governance definitionally is. So, if commercial funding can distort 
Internet research, it is but obviously that it has to be an absolute no 
no for governance functions (standards making for something as socially 
important today as the Internet, in absence of any further neutral 
public oversight constitutes a governance function).

parminder

On Sunday 23 March 2014 07:04 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Michael,
>
> On 03/23/2014 01:23 AM, michael gurstein wrote:
>> I personally have no idea whether what you folks and your compadres
>> do/come up with is as pure as todays snowfall up on Grouse
>> Mountain--or not. But the absence of a recognition of what is
>> expected of you in terms of (at least formal) accountability and
>> transparency and what those expectations imply is, as I said to
>> John, I think a rather significant problem.
> Actually you said you didn't know how the IETF works.
>
> And I said that the sponsorship stuff is public. And
> all the mailing list traffic is public and open to all.
> I really think you're in the arena of FUD in terms of
> how your concern absolutely does not apply in the IETF
> context.
>
> But yet again - if you or someone is concerned go look
> at the facts in the public record and then come back.
> I am entirely sure that if something interesting were
> found there the IETF would discuss it to death in the
> same manner we do with almost everything. But I'm also
> pretty confident that such an examination of the IETF
> if done fairly would actually not show up such a problem.
>
> So the situation is that you don't know how the IETF works.
> And the IETF does (I claim, knowing something about it, but
> anyone can verify) act transparently with accountability.
> The problem it seems to me is with the first sentence in
> this paragraph.
>
> S.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTLjoiAAoJEC88hzaAX42iYSYIAJONSRxs7HHtOvg+LczrOc/K
> i5MgKMrCJhvC8jns6S4UnFeo02bJvU+ZVdzDMnUG6uPG6pNdu/eJKBUkQ2FCjPUF
> 6Sh6bchj4GZfZIqEEktvtAvexOjgztBXaUgqAw3j48dcTCsb8QZA3FAL4ymg68ol
> fhTEyv/WQ5Ss9Iju00wbKoFLunKWfzY1M2ffZOUQ2DrBY7W2GWOoPvgBgdjHkpDy
> Pfyl8jNkpvTc0JVHCd7JleZ0YnbsxNs/HHBWXlH9FfwV3GD7ZnZFaKiWFR0/lh/b
> EnOS1Q9JWeYV/F9f6QxuKQmBSlxq2b/syPUgfsFja/UWs6hCxslKj7Z3foBBkoo=
> =eajt
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140323/9ac6d366/attachment.html>