A sort of conversation seem to be starting and I am not sure where it will take us. It seems that the Commission, or more precisely DG CONNECT, is working on a significant policy document, a Communication to Parliament and Council. You can get a flavour of some of their concerns here: "What is the situation we have decided to change: The current multi stakeholder approach to Internet governance is very complex and lacks both transparency and accountability in order for all actors to fully adhere to the way the internet is currently governed. We need to ensure that the global principles for Internet governance continue to develop in line with our internet COMPACT, through enhanced coordination with EU Member States and proactive presence in international fora. Furthermore, the Commission, in cooperation with the EEAS, will present an EU vision for Internet governance as part of the overall internet strategy. The current institutional set up needs to be strengthened and streamlined, including the functioning of the Governmental advisory Committee (GAC) to ICANN and an IGF better focused on main challenges in producing concrete deliverables. The complexity of the current multi stakeholder approach to Internet Governance has to be further developed in a comprehensible manner so as to ensure inclusiveness of all actors. The establishment of GIPO will contribute to this. ..." http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/connect/en/content/international-internet-governance... So they want to reform the multi-stakeholder set-up? And by the way I am intrigued by the mention of "enhanced coordination". That always had a special EU meaning and that was not what people, perhaps naively, thought. Meanwhile ICANN is also busy. Steve Crocker writes: "As anyone who has followed the global discourse on Internet governance knows, the multistakeholder model is under threat. Some governments have expressed a clear interest in putting multilateral organizations in charge of Internet policymaking. As the Internet has taken on a larger role in the economy and society, some governments have grown increasingly uncomfortable with their perceived lack of control. More recently, ICANN has received requests to expand its remit to address issues beyond the coordination of the Internet’s unique identifiers. This we will not do. The ICANN Board recognizes that the single, open, global, interoperable Internet is under threat of failing due to emerging pressures on multistakeholder governance. As a consequence, the Board gave the ICANN CEO a mandate to work with other key organizations and leaders to establish a coalition to evaluate and participate in the formation a movement or initiative for an Internet cooperation agenda. We are pleased with his initial engagement with the Internet organizations and the broader multistakeholder community. ..." http://blog.icann.org/2013/11/icanns-mandate-to-preserve-and-enhance-multist... Watch this space? Gordon
On 17/11/2013 17:23, Gordon Lennox wrote: re: DG CONNECT's statement:
The current institutional set up needs to be strengthened and streamlined, including the functioning of the Governmental advisory Committee (GAC) to ICANN and an IGF better focused on main challenges in producing concrete deliverables.
the RIPE NCC kindly sponsored travel/hotel expenses for me to go to the IGF meeting in Bali in October. I was initially puzzled that there was an explicit intention not to make any decisions there, but it quickly became clear that this was a very smart thing to do. The result was an unusually open atmosphere considering the attendee spread - civil society, lawmakers, regulatory people, politicians, etc. Pretty much everyone was on equal footing, and that made it easy to approach people or to be approached. Most importantly, the majority of people were enthusiastic about understanding other peoples' points of view. So although the IGF does not produce concrete deliverables - I assume this means anything ranging from policy documents to legal agreements - it produces something much more valuable, namely a better quality understanding of the issues surrounding internet governance from a variety of valid and important points of view. This allows the people who are tasked by our societies to create laws and regulations, to do so on a much more informed basis from a wider cross-section of opinions. There is no doubt in my mind that if the IFG meeting is changed to create a requirement for "concrete deliverables", this critical feature of the forum will be lost. Nick
In message <52890490.4040205@inex.ie>, at 18:01:52 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013, Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie> writes
the RIPE NCC kindly sponsored travel/hotel expenses for me to go to the IGF meeting in Bali in October.
I was initially puzzled that there was an explicit intention not to make any decisions there, but it quickly became clear that this was a very smart thing to do. The result was an unusually open atmosphere considering the attendee spread - civil society, lawmakers, regulatory people, politicians, etc. Pretty much everyone was on equal footing, and that made it easy to approach people or to be approached. Most importantly, the majority of people were enthusiastic about understanding other peoples' points of view.
That has been the IGF mission statement, and everyone involved's understanding, since 2006. I'm sorry no-one brought you up to speed before they sent you to Bali. I hope it didn't hamper your mission at all. -- Roland Perry
On 17/11/2013 19:55, Roland Perry wrote:
That has been the IGF mission statement, and everyone involved's understanding, since 2006. I'm sorry no-one brought you up to speed before they sent you to Bali. I hope it didn't hamper your mission at all.
I knew well in advance, but there's a huge difference between knowing something in theory and realising first-hand how important it is in practice. Nick
In message <52894B24.2060309@inex.ie>, at 23:03:00 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013, Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie> writes
That has been the IGF mission statement, and everyone involved's understanding, since 2006. I'm sorry no-one brought you up to speed before they sent you to Bali. I hope it didn't hamper your mission at all.
I knew well in advance, but there's a huge difference between knowing something in theory and realising first-hand how important it is in practice.
I have a "general theory of big meetings" that the first one (of any particular flavour) you go to unprepared is always a bit of a surprise, and you spend much of the time finding out how it all works, who is in charge, and what the mechanisms are for making a meaningful contribution. Quite a bit of that experience can be passed on to future novices, and thanks for doing so. -- Roland Perry
Thanks for sharing. I would echo and amplify Nick's statement. While those acclimated to the "big meeting multi-stakeholder Internet governance model" have a clear grasp on its utility, and its boundaries, this isn't well understood even a few feet outside this world. As in, I recently explained it to a number of veteran engineers who, while familiar with NANOG and other such venues, had no real knowledge or understanding of IGF, ITU, et al.. This experience has been repeated enough that I take it to be indicative of a broader lack of understanding. Illuminating this more clearly, even if it's repetition, could only help. As a first step, it would make sense to highlight how governments (EC, here) can participate. And not simply how, but that their participation is crucial and incredibly valuable. What I read here (and in many similar statements) is a concern that there are areas of policy "that we're as government are supposed to control." There's a worry that by legitimizing some vague process they cede control, and this threatens the relevance of office and (of course) dreams of personal success. This may seem "touchy-feely," but I believe it's fundamental to understanding the stakes, and how to influence. I think it would also be salutary to shift framing a bit: emphasizing that "multistakeholderism" (a term that has got to go, btw) isn't simply a series of large meetings that cost a lot of money to attend and whose impact can't be easily quantified. M'holderism is *a model for engagement that recognizes a foundational truth about the Internet: it doesn't' work in a way that serves the world without the participation of a number of disparate constituents. O*perators, governments, end-users, software developers, standards bodies...on and on...all of them must have a voice in order to ensure productive decision making. Engaging all of these parties in discussion and debate is messy and unprecedented, but without engagement we risk decisions that, through ignorance or malice or both, misunderstand fundamental properties and thus endanger what we're all working to preserve. Gordon, do you have a sense of who is already working with the commission to raise these and similar concerns, and whether (and where) added input from the RIPE community could be helpful? Cheers, Meredith On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 3:06 AM, Roland Perry < roland@internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
In message <52894B24.2060309@inex.ie>, at 23:03:00 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013, Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie> writes
That has been the IGF mission statement, and everyone involved's
understanding, since 2006. I'm sorry no-one brought you up to speed before they sent you to Bali. I hope it didn't hamper your mission at all.
I knew well in advance, but there's a huge difference between knowing something in theory and realising first-hand how important it is in practice.
I have a "general theory of big meetings" that the first one (of any particular flavour) you go to unprepared is always a bit of a surprise, and you spend much of the time finding out how it all works, who is in charge, and what the mechanisms are for making a meaningful contribution.
Quite a bit of that experience can be passed on to future novices, and thanks for doing so. -- Roland Perry
-- Meredith Whittaker Program Manager, Google Research Google NYC
In message <CAHx-7OzPhO5QfPS3NQYqaphsxpAEt7nDiCCkvUpoh8dCCU5-Ew@mail.gmail.com>, at 15:21:51 on Mon, 18 Nov 2013, Meredith Whittaker <meredithrachel@google.com> writes
who is already working with the commission to raise these and similar concerns
I always found the EIF to be a very good "speed dating" venue for making contact in Brussels. Although the members appear to be mainly industry and Parliamentarians, there were always several relevant individuals from the Commission participating as well. Several "usual suspects" are to be found in the Associate Member list. https://www.eifonline.org/members.html -- Roland Perry
On 17 nov 2013, at 19:01, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 17/11/2013 17:23, Gordon Lennox wrote:
re: DG CONNECT's statement:
The current institutional set up needs to be strengthened and streamlined, including the functioning of the Governmental advisory Committee (GAC) to ICANN and an IGF better focused on main challenges in producing concrete deliverables.
the RIPE NCC kindly sponsored travel/hotel expenses for me to go to the IGF meeting in Bali in October.
I was initially puzzled that there was an explicit intention not to make any decisions there, but it quickly became clear that this was a very smart thing to do. The result was an unusually open atmosphere considering the attendee spread - civil society, lawmakers, regulatory people, politicians, etc. Pretty much everyone was on equal footing, and that made it easy to approach people or to be approached. Most importantly, the majority of people were enthusiastic about understanding other peoples' points of view.
So although the IGF does not produce concrete deliverables - I assume this means anything ranging from policy documents to legal agreements - it produces something much more valuable, namely a better quality understanding of the issues surrounding internet governance from a variety of valid and important points of view. This allows the people who are tasked by our societies to create laws and regulations, to do so on a much more informed basis from a wider cross-section of opinions.
There is no doubt in my mind that if the IFG meeting is changed to create a requirement for "concrete deliverables", this critical feature of the forum will be lost.
Hear hear. It would also mean that it puts governments in the position of negotiating the outcome of the IGF which has several implications. It takes away the open-ended nature of the discussions and the free and open exchange of ideas. Governments (and in part the rest of us too) will have to defend their positions as the outcomes of the IGF will have to be considered or even implemented in their countries. Once you have agreed text, a country can't just decide that they want to ignore it. It also moves the discussions away from focusing on real issues, to negotiating paragraphs and words. I have been in those types of UN meetings, and believe me, it is not a particularly satisfying process. (Anyone who is not a professional diplomat, who has been in meetings where a whole document ends up in *square brackets, shivers at the thought of such negotiations.) While I can see that in some international negotiations (say peace negotiations?), the slowness of that process can be a feature, I am certain that when it comes to the Internet, that slowness is a bug. Rough consensus and running code works a lot better and making things work on the Internet. Nurani *Square brackets are used in UN contexts to mark text that cannot be agreed on. When I was in the UN CSTD WG on IGF improvements, in the first round, we failed miserably as a group to agree on anything. Text was being thrown up on the screen, only to immediately be protested by someone, and consequently being put in square brackets. At the end of the meeting, the whole document was in square brackets...
Nick
In message <3FD9D0A6-EB07-4579-AA74-6A7EBCADE814@netnod.se>, at 08:24:41 on Tue, 19 Nov 2013, Nurani Nimpuno <nurani@netnod.se> writes
(Anyone who is not a professional diplomat, who has been in meetings where a whole document ends up in *square brackets, shivers at the thought of such negotiations.)
Actually, I think it works very well, especially the square brackets part, because it allows you to park an area of disagreement (possibly sending it off to a spin-off working group to resolve amongst those who care the most) while the meeting can get on with the remainder of the document, and not losing sight of the 'big picture'. For example, a meeting can agree the need for policy objectives in respect of rolling out IPv6, but could get derailed if there's protracted disagreement about whether to call it "deployment" or "migration". So put that word in square brackets and move on to agree the broad principles, while a subgroup works out which word has, yes I'll use the word, consensus.
I am certain that when it comes to the Internet, that slowness is a bug. Rough consensus and running code works a lot better
Probably does when debating "Standards" (or should that be "standards" - I know let's put the word in square brackets).
*Square brackets are used in UN contexts to mark text that cannot be agreed on. When I was in the UN CSTD WG on IGF improvements, in the first round, we failed miserably as a group to agree on anything. Text was being thrown up on the screen, only to immediately be protested by someone, and consequently being put in square brackets. At the end of the meeting, the whole document was in square brackets...
Of course, the idea is to remove the square brackets, or delete the bracketed text before the end of the meeting. If more than 10% of the document ever gets (temporarily) in square brackets the whole basis of the meeting, or the motives of the attendees, is thrown into doubt. -- Roland Perry
On 19 nov 2013, at 09:53, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <3FD9D0A6-EB07-4579-AA74-6A7EBCADE814@netnod.se>, at 08:24:41 on Tue, 19 Nov 2013, Nurani Nimpuno <nurani@netnod.se> writes
(Anyone who is not a professional diplomat, who has been in meetings where a whole document ends up in *square brackets, shivers at the thought of such negotiations.)
Actually, I think it works very well, especially the square brackets part, because it allows you to park an area of disagreement (possibly sending it off to a spin-off working group to resolve amongst those who care the most) while the meeting can get on with the remainder of the document, and not losing sight of the 'big picture'.
For example, a meeting can agree the need for policy objectives in respect of rolling out IPv6, but could get derailed if there's protracted disagreement about whether to call it "deployment" or "migration". So put that word in square brackets and move on to agree the broad principles, while a subgroup works out which word has, yes I'll use the word, consensus.
I completely disagree with the comparison. Consensus is not about spending more time finding the right wording that everyone can agree on for that particular detail in that particular paragraph. Consensus is a lot more pragmatic than that. But let's not get into a long discussion about what consensus is.
I am certain that when it comes to the Internet, that slowness is a >bug. Rough consensus and running code works a lot better
Probably does when debating "Standards" (or should that be "standards" - I know let's put the word in square brackets).
Not just standards. I think it's served us well in the RIR community too - creating policies that manage Internet resources. Policies that change, as the Internet changes. Policy affects operations and vice versa. The Internet changes as we speak. If we take several years to debate wording for a particular policy, chances are that the Internet has changed so much in the meantime that the policy describes an Internet that is long gone.
*Square brackets are used in UN contexts to mark text that cannot be agreed on. When I was in the UN CSTD WG on IGF improvements, in the first round, we failed miserably as a group to agree on anything. Text was being thrown up on the screen, only to immediately be protested by someone, and consequently being put in square brackets. At the end of the meeting, the whole document was in square brackets...
Of course, the idea is to remove the square brackets, or delete the bracketed text before the end of the meeting. If more than 10% of the document ever gets (temporarily) in square brackets the whole basis of the meeting, or the motives of the attendees, is thrown into doubt.
No comment. All I'll say is that I have seen this happen many times in that context. Nurani
-- Roland Perry
In message <EDB749A6-ED05-498A-A15F-F9F5683789E2@netnod.se>, at 10:23:31 on Tue, 19 Nov 2013, Nurani Nimpuno <nurani@netnod.se> writes
(Anyone who is not a professional diplomat, who has been in meetings where a whole document ends up in *square brackets, shivers at the thought of such negotiations.)
Actually, I think it works very well, especially the square brackets part, because it allows you to park an area of disagreement (possibly sending it off to a spin-off working group to resolve amongst those who care the most) while the meeting can get on with the remainder of the document, and not losing sight of the 'big picture'.
For example, a meeting can agree the need for policy objectives in respect of rolling out IPv6, but could get derailed if there's protracted disagreement about whether to call it "deployment" or "migration". So put that word in square brackets and move on to agree the broad principles, while a subgroup works out which word has, yes I'll use the word, consensus.
I completely disagree with the comparison. Consensus is not about spending more time finding the right wording that everyone can agree on for that particular detail in that particular paragraph. Consensus is a lot more pragmatic than that.
It's entirely appropriate to have consensus on small details, as well as the bigger picture.
I am certain that when it comes to the Internet, that slowness is a >bug. Rough consensus and running code works a lot better
Probably does when debating "Standards" (or should that be "standards" - I know let's put the word in square brackets).
Not just standards. I think it's served us well in the RIR community too - creating policies that manage Internet resources. Policies that change,
I regard those policies as "standards for the issuing and approved use of IP addresses". Where is the "running code" when it come to (eg) denying IXPs the right to have provider-independent IPv6 addresses (as was the case for some considerable time).
as the Internet changes.
If you don't build in the possibility of changes with circumstances, whatever you are doing is doomed.
Policy affects operations and vice versa. The Internet changes as we speak. If we take several years to debate wording for a particular policy, chances are that the Internet has changed so much in the meantime that the policy describes an Internet that is long gone.
Happens all the time.
*Square brackets are used in UN contexts to mark text that cannot be agreed on. When I was in the UN CSTD WG on IGF improvements, in the first round, we failed miserably as a group to agree on anything. Text was being thrown up on the screen, only to immediately be protested by someone, and consequently being put in square brackets. At the end of the meeting, the whole document was in square brackets...
Of course, the idea is to remove the square brackets, or delete the bracketed text before the end of the meeting. If more than 10% of the document ever gets (temporarily) in square brackets the whole basis of the meeting, or the motives of the attendees, is thrown into doubt.
No comment. All I'll say is that I have seen this happen many times in that context.
"No comment". Then a comment? Can we please at least observe the niceties of debate, here. -- Roland Perry
On 21/11/2013 14:41, Roland Perry wrote:
Where is the "running code" when it come to (eg) denying IXPs the right to have provider-independent IPv6 addresses (as was the case for some considerable time).
that particular policy bug was fixed in the summer of 2001. In the 12.5 years since then, I think we can reasonably claim that the RIPE community has built up a vibrant interest in actively managing its addressing policies using bottom up principals. Nick
In message <528E1E7B.60000@inex.ie>, at 14:53:47 on Thu, 21 Nov 2013, Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie> writes
Where is the "running code" when it come to (eg) denying IXPs the right to have provider-independent IPv6 addresses (as was the case for some considerable time).
that particular policy bug was fixed in the summer of 2001. In the 12.5 years since then, I think we can reasonably claim that the RIPE community has built up a vibrant interest in actively managing its addressing policies using bottom up principals.
And I don't dispute that for a moment. Currently I'm particularly interested in getting the "underbottom" (that's users and their representatives, rather than typically the layer above, their connectivity suppliers) more involved in that process. It's a bit like "civil society, but without the anticensorship flavour". -- Roland Perry
at the risk of derailing the thread, what *does* anticensorship taste like? (stated more plainly: I don't follow.) On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Roland Perry < roland@internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
In message <528E1E7B.60000@inex.ie>, at 14:53:47 on Thu, 21 Nov 2013, Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie> writes
Where is the "running code" when it come to (eg) denying IXPs the right to
have provider-independent IPv6 addresses (as was the case for some considerable time).
that particular policy bug was fixed in the summer of 2001. In the 12.5 years since then, I think we can reasonably claim that the RIPE community has built up a vibrant interest in actively managing its addressing policies using bottom up principals.
And I don't dispute that for a moment.
Currently I'm particularly interested in getting the "underbottom" (that's users and their representatives, rather than typically the layer above, their connectivity suppliers) more involved in that process. It's a bit like "civil society, but without the anticensorship flavour". -- Roland Perry
-- Meredith Whittaker Program Manager, Google Research Google NYC
In message <CAHx-7Ow2gtjJku6d8Bc0=Q5WEgM_S+G5U+spxZ9ZfWmsNSY8mg@mail.gmail.com>, at 12:05:53 on Thu, 21 Nov 2013, Meredith Whittaker <meredithrachel@google.com> writes
at the risk of derailing the thread, what does anticensorship taste like? (stated more plainly: I don't follow.
It's a metaphor harking back to 'ingredients' in cooking. -- Roland Perry
Roland, Roland Perry wrote: [...]
Where is the "running code" when it come to (eg) denying IXPs the right to have provider-independent IPv6 addresses (as was the case for some considerable time).
I have to disagree. I don't think there was any "considerable time." ripe-196 was published in mid-1999 and documented the "Provisional IPv6 Assignment and Allocation Policy." It was called the "bootstrap" policy at the time and was intended as a 'shakedown' to allow the first 100 allocations across all three RIR regions (this was before LACNIC and then AFRINIC achieved recognition, in-line with ICP-2). The idea was to find out what was good and what needed to change for a more permanent policy. It was an experiment. At the end of June 2002, ripe-246 documented the policy that had been developed based on the experience gained through ripe-196. As you note, it did not cater to IXPs but that problem was solved about six weeks later, with the publication ripe-256 in early August, which documented "IPv6 Address Space Policy for Internet Exchange Points." I've not searched through the lir-wg list archives but I don't remember the policy discussion being particularly contentious or long drawn out. The community rapidly recognised the technical need for PI space for IXP peering LANs and agreed language that is substantially the same as is used in the current policy document, ripe-451. Regards, Leo Vegoda
In message <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B19681060D2B@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>, at 07:52:34 on Thu, 21 Nov 2013, Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@icann.org> writes
Where is the "running code" when it come to (eg) denying IXPs the right to have provider-independent IPv6 addresses (as was the case for some considerable time).
I have to disagree. I don't think there was any "considerable time."
ripe-196 was published in mid-1999 and documented the "Provisional IPv6 Assignment and Allocation Policy." It was called the "bootstrap" policy at the time and was intended as a 'shakedown' to allow the first 100 allocations across all three RIR regions (this was before LACNIC and then AFRINIC achieved recognition, in-line with ICP-2). The idea was to find out what was good and what needed to change for a more permanent policy. It was an experiment.
At the end of June 2002, ripe-246 documented the policy that had been developed based on the experience gained through ripe-196. As you note, it did not cater to IXPs but that problem was solved about six weeks later, with the publication ripe-256 in early August, which documented "IPv6 Address Space Policy for Internet Exchange Points."
I remember this being an issue at RIPE meetings in 2000. But aside from the fog over the timescale, can you give us a quick run-down of the relevance to this issue of "running code"? After all, the purpose of this list (and the WG) is to foster co-operation and capacity building with other stakeholder groups not familiar with IETF (and other technical) jargon. -- Roland Perry
Hi Roland, Roland Perry wrote: [...]
At the end of June 2002, ripe-246 documented the policy that had been developed based on the experience gained through ripe-196. As you note, it did not cater to IXPs but that problem was solved about six weeks later, with the publication ripe-256 in early August, which documented "IPv6 Address Space Policy for Internet Exchange Points."
I remember this being an issue at RIPE meetings in 2000.
I expect it was, although don't remember specific discussions. The bootstrap policy was always intended as a short term experiment to find out what was needed in the longer term. Not discussing IXPs' needs would have been odd.
But aside from the fog over the timescale, can you give us a quick run-down of the relevance to this issue of "running code"? After all, the purpose of this list (and the WG) is to foster co-operation and capacity building with other stakeholder groups not familiar with IETF (and other technical) jargon.
As I see it, running code is a synonym for "things that work" and developing things that work generally requires prototyping, testing and revision. I think this is a good example of a process that tested a policy, found where it needed to be improved for the general case (ISP use) and also came up with other policies that supported edge cases, like IXPs and root DNS servers (ripe-223). If that is a hard concept to explain, a comparison that might work could be writing a novel. You start with an idea, develop a draft and then work with an editor to sand down the rough edges before it is ready to go to press. Regards, Leo
In message <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B19681060D46@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>, at 09:48:58 on Thu, 21 Nov 2013, Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@icann.org> writes
At the end of June 2002, ripe-246 documented the policy that had been developed based on the experience gained through ripe-196. As you note, it did not cater to IXPs but that problem was solved about later, with the publication ripe-256 in early August, which documented "IPv6 Address Space Policy for Internet Exchange Points."
I remember this being an issue at RIPE meetings in 2000.
I expect it was, although don't remember specific discussions. The bootstrap policy was always intended as a short term experiment to find out what was needed in the longer term. Not discussing IXPs' needs would have been odd.
They were discussed, but getting acceptance of the concept that IXPs are neutral, with the idea of a single "upstream" not really applying, was a struggle. We at the IXPs could see it, obviously.
But aside from the fog over the timescale, can you give us a quick run-down of the relevance to this issue of "running code"? After all, the purpose of this list (and the WG) is to foster co-operation and capacity building with other stakeholder groups not familiar with IETF (and other technical) jargon.
As I see it, running code is a synonym for "things that work" and developing things that work generally requires prototyping, testing and revision. I think this is a good example of a process that tested a policy, found where it needed to be improved for the general case (ISP use) and also came up with other policies that supported edge cases, like IXPs and root DNS servers (ripe-223).
"Things that work" is a good alternative description, because it doesn't quite so much imply you have to make a physical working prototype (which several people I've spoken to assume is the case) to test the concept - debating it in the abstract is good enough. -- Roland Perry
On 21 nov 2013, at 15:41, Roland Perry <roland@internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
<snip>
Where is the "running code" when it come to (eg) denying IXPs the right to have provider-independent IPv6 addresses (as was the case for some considerable time).
Leo and Nick addressed this, and I agree with their assessment of the events at the time. <snip>
*Square brackets are used in UN contexts to mark text that cannot be agreed on. When I was in the UN CSTD WG on IGF improvements, in the first round, we failed miserably as a group to agree on anything. Text was being thrown up on the screen, only to immediately be protested by someone, and consequently being put in square brackets. At the end of the meeting, the whole document was in square brackets...
Of course, the idea is to remove the square brackets, or delete the bracketed text before the end of the meeting. If more than 10% of the document ever gets (temporarily) in square brackets the whole basis of the meeting, or the motives of the attendees, is thrown into doubt.
No comment. All I'll say is that I have seen this happen many times in that context.
"No comment". Then a comment? Can we please at least observe the niceties of debate, here.
If there was any sarcasm detected in my tone, it was not aimed at you. It was aimed at those attendees whose motives you question (as do I). Maybe I've been unlucky in the meetings I've attended, but I've seen this happen several times, resulting in the discussions collapsing, not leaving me with much faith in that process. But we're digressing. Nurani
-- Roland Perry
In message <D7FA8C88-57DB-4701-9A3D-22DDCB2CC161@netnod.se>, at 20:34:43 on Fri, 22 Nov 2013, Nurani Nimpuno <nurani@netnod.se> writes
Where is the "running code" when it come to (eg) denying IXPs the right to have provider-independent IPv6 addresses (as was the case for some considerable time).
Leo and Nick addressed this, and I agree with their assessment of the events at the time.
Which differs from the perception of those running IXPs. [Square bracket issues]
Maybe I've been unlucky in the meetings I've attended, but I've seen this happen several times, resulting in the discussions collapsing, not leaving me with much faith in that process.
Perhaps that's because you have observer-bias towards discussions in subgroups rather than the plenary. I've been to enough meetings where the plenary *must* craft a deliverable (which is I think where we started vis-vis the IGF) to know that by the end of the meeting all the square brackets *must* have been removed. Even if an arguably dysfunctional sub-group less familiar with the process couldn't manage it earlier in the process. -- Roland Perry
At 00:53 19-11-2013, Roland Perry wrote:
For example, a meeting can agree the need for policy objectives in respect of rolling out IPv6, but could get derailed if there's protracted disagreement about whether to call it "deployment" or "migration". So put that word in square brackets and move on to agree the broad principles, while a subgroup works out which word has, yes I'll use the word, consensus.
At 01:23 19-11-2013, Nurani Nimpuno wrote:
I completely disagree with the comparison. Consensus is not about spending more time finding the right wording that everyone can agree on for that particular detail in that particular paragraph. Consensus is a lot more pragmatic than that. But let's not get into a long discussion about what consensus is.
I'll rewrite the first (quoted) paragraph as: For example, a meeting can agree the need for policy objectives in respect of rolling out IPv6, but could get derailed if there's protracted disagreement about whether to call it "deployment" or "migration". So put that word in square brackets and move on to agree the broad principles, while a subgroup works out which word has, yes I'll use the word, [consensus]. Regards, -sm
In message <7F9C57A3-5813-4B3B-AB2B-8AE6245AA853@gmail.com>, at 18:23:14 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com> writes
It seems that the Commission, or more precisely DG CONNECT, is working on a significant policy document, a Communication to Parliament and Council.
You can get a flavour of some of their concerns here:
"What is the situation we have decided to change:
The current multi stakeholder approach to Internet governance is very complex and lacks both transparency and accountability in order for all actors to fully adhere to the way the internet is currently governed.
That says to me "we don't understand it, can someone please explain it better". Keeping the same staff on the job for more than year or two might help, of course.
We need to ensure that the global principles for Internet governance continue to develop in line with our internet COMPACT, through enhanced coordination with EU Member States and proactive presence in international fora.
I'm not aware that anyone is actively seeking to prevent their participation, or even actively seeking to prevent a greater participation. -- Roland Perry
participants (7)
-
Gordon Lennox -
Leo Vegoda -
Meredith Whittaker -
Nick Hilliard -
Nurani Nimpuno -
Roland Perry -
SM