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

[Jefsey]

Dear Andrew,
I agree with you on most points (may be should one reread what I 
wrote). Except on two small points:

1/ in sponsoring meetings one maintains friendship. It is a basic 
investment for good relations and a good image as an innovation 
supporter. Regular lobbying strategy.
2/ you did not address the main question: "I would be quite 
interested if someone could explain me why, in terms of business 
return and Congress legislation evolution Comsat and its likes would 
be interested in internet innovation" (status-quo is not about 
influencing innovation, but about dilluting it).

What I only know is that Fadi announced Sao Paulo in including Telcos 
in "the familly". As far as we are concerned all  this suspicion 
results from 1996 Telecommunication Act intricacies. This should be 
considered as purely local. Non-US citizens/residents are not 
concerned anymore if they disengage from a VGN the VGNIC of which is 
operated under US jurisdiction. At least, until the Congress and FCC 
find an acceptable compromise on the datacommunications reality.
jfc


At 18:22 25/03/2014, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>(cc:s trimmed extensively)
>
>On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 06:03:52PM +0100, Jefsey wrote:
>
> > read carefully the first part of RFC 3869 and ask yourself why IAB
> > took the time to write it. There are several ways to tamper with
> > standards. In research and in details, i.e. in financing
> > architectonics and in implementation aspects. This means in fooling
> > the IAB before the charter, and in the labs of those who introduce
> > RFCs.
>
>Just to go back to how this thread got kicked off, however, the
>original point appeared to be an implication that Comcast's
>sponsorship of the IETF meetings was somehow malevolent or otherwise
>dodgy.  But nobody has yet posted any evidence, or even as far as I
>can see an argument, that sponsoring a meeting has any effect on the
>standards and specifications the IETF produces.  Nobody has yet posted
>any evidence, or even as far as I can see an argument, that the IETF
>standards process is not open the way Stephen and others have been
>pointing out.  Finally, and with respect to RFC 3869, there appears to
>be a conflation (I can't tell whether it's willful) of "Internet
>research" and "Internet standards-making".  The latter may be a result
>of the former, but certainly the motivations, goals, and interests in
>these two activities differ some.  In this thread, also, several times
>people have conflated both of those with Internet governance
>structures more generally.
>
>None of that conflation is helpful if our goal is better understanding
>or useful future structures.  If people wish to make a general point
>about the way standards-making is funded for the Internet, then they
>should make that argument quite apart from the discussion of funding
>of IETF meetings.  And if someone wants to assert that the way IETF
>activities are paid for subverts those standards, I think he or she
>needs a better argument than vague hints about evil corporations
>paying for everything.  There are certainly advantages and
>disadvantages to the IETF approach to all of this, and there's no
>doubt that corporations attempt to influence the outcome of various
>IETF standards efforts in line with corporate interests.  I think,
>however, that several of the disadvantages are carefully offset within
>the IETF, both culturally and procedurally, and if someone thinks
>otherwise I think the burden of proof is on that individual to present
>the evidence.  Waving around RFC 3869 is not such evidence.
>
>Best regards,
>
>A
>
>--
>Andrew Sullivan
>ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
>
>_______________________________________________
>discuss mailing list
>discuss at 1net.org
>http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss