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

Stephen Farrell stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie
Sun Mar 23 16:42:57 UTC 2014


On 03/23/2014 04:33 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
> Stephen,
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie] 
> Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 8:41 AM
> To: michael gurstein; 'S Moonesamy'; discuss at 1net.org
> Subject: Re: [discuss] FW: Comcast undertakes 9 year IETF cosponsorship!?
> 
> On 03/23/2014 03:16 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
>> Stephen,
>>
>> As I  said before I am not sufficiently familiar with the IETF to 
>> comment on its internal processes.
> 
> But you have commented on those. And negatively. You are very clearly
> contradicting yourself here IMO.
> [MG>] some examples please...

Really? Well, sure then. Your 2nd mail in this thread says:

"Ah yes, and Comcast that exemplar of virtue and support for the
democratic process will, contrary  to all expectations, not, as the
one paying the piper expecting to call the tune... (and of course,
we are expected to build our hopes for a "democratic" governance of
the Internet on such fantasies..."

Maybe you meant something else but I read that as you saying you
think or insinuate that the IETF will do what comcast want because
of the sponsorship agreement. Feel free to clarify that you are in
fact happy that the IETF will not be subverted by this. (Which is
the case in fact.)

>> However, the IETF is presented (and most of those involved appear to 
>> enthusiastically welcome its role) as a significant element in, and 
>> even exemplar of multistakeholderism where MSism is the preferred 
>> modality for public policy making in an Internet Governance context.
> 
> If you had said:
> 
> "However, the IETF is presented (and most of those involved appear to
> enthusiastically welcome its role) as a significant element in, and even
> exemplar of a multistakeholder model in operation."
> 
> ...then I'd agree. The IETF is significant and a good example of that kind
> of setup.
> [MG>] okay
> 
> But I think the "MSism" term you used is laden with all sorts of baggage of
> which I'm unaware so I don't actually get what you meant and hence neither
> agree nor disagree with you.
> [MG>] The issue of who has laden the terminology/practices of MSism with
> "baggage" is an interesting one.  

Well, very slightly; in actual fact I find it pretty boring;-)

Its more interesting to wonder how different uses of the term (which
is not one I'd use) really differ.

> Are you for example, seriously suggesting
> that the Multistakeholder processes which the USG is referring to in
> http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/prsrl/2014/221946.htm only have to do with
> what you and your IETF colleagues are doing in your various internal
> processes.

It is IMO entirely valid to wonder how well IETF processes might
generalise. Claiming that that's impossible and terrible (as you
seem to be) seems like nonsense to me. Equally, claiming that they
will obviously work just fine when applied to anything is also
nonsense.

S.



More information about the discuss mailing list