This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to discuss@1net.org. Members of the I-coordination mailing list have been moved to the new mailing list. To learn more, visit 1net.org.

[I-coordination] What is 1net to me?

Phillip Hallam-Baker hallam at gmail.com
Wed Dec 4 22:28:42 CET 2013


On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Roland Perry <
roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:

> In message <20131204201850.GB23876 at mx1.yitter.info>, at 15:18:50 on Wed,
> 4 Dec 2013, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> writes
> >On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 07:33:48PM +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
> >> In message <20131204165728.GE22945 at mx1.yitter.info>, at 11:57:28 on
> Wed,
> >> 4 Dec 2013, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> remarked:
> >
> >> >The difficulty I'm having with this request is that I'm not sure who
> >> >could speak for the so-called Technical Community (I say so-called
> >> >because I'm not even sure it's a meaningful category).
> >>
> >> You could start with the signatories of the Montevideo Statement, who
> >> declared themselves to be "The leaders of organizations responsible for
> >> coordination of the Internet technical infrastructure globally".
> >
> >Those are rather different categories.  It is certainly true that
> >Jari, in his role as IESG/IETF Chair, and Russ, in his role as IAB
> >Chair, count as leaders of two of those organizations.  Moreover, if
> >you read that statement carefully, you will note that it is a report
> >of a meeting among individuals.
>
> In which case why does the statement open with the words I quoted?
>
> > The IETF and IAB Chairs of course act as leaders, but in general the
> >IETF doesn't elect people to speak for it.
>
> So why did they allow their names to be attached to a statement of this
> kind with attributions such as "Chair IAB|IETF"?
>
> At the very least it will be confusing to people who are not extremely
> well versed in IETF politics (which is of course "almost everyone").
>
> They will undoubtedly assume that their signature is backed by the
> organisations they chair, just as we assume that what the RIR and ISOC
> chiefs said was representing their organisations' view, and not just a
> personal opinion.
>

The constraints Andrew raises are hardly unique to the IETF they apply
equally to the President of the United States.

Even though the POTUS is elected to speak for the US in treaty
negotiations, any treaty must be ratified by the US Senate before it is
binding.

It is generally understood that the only parties that can make such
commitments unilaterally are either essentially undemocratic or
inconsequential.



-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://nro.net/pipermail/i-coordination/attachments/20131204/9993e8c9/attachment.html 


More information about the I-coordination mailing list