[discuss] [governance] RE: FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?
parminder at itforchange.net
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
> Parminder -
> Could you elaborate on the first point? I'm at a loss how the IETF
> 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
> and hence makes efforts to include an encryption option for those who
> 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.
> Disclaimer: My views alone.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss