Subject: from the horse's mouth

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 15:59:19 +0200

http://www.publictechnology.net/article_avantgo.php?sid=3877
http://newsfromrussia.com/world/2005/10/06/64579.html

This may help to better understand the Internet Governance technical 
context/contest.
And why it may be worrying for some to see IETF/IESG positions to 
support only one vision, rather than technically support them all 
when it is easy to do.

jfc

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Eduardo Mendez <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 13:52:52 +0200

Thank you for these two links.
Peace Nobel Price: the IETF lead to wars.
EU Commissioner: everyone, get real.
They tell another story than "Govs are the devil".

I understand why IETF fears local governments for their meetings.
What IETF discuss may hurt thir people, peace, culture.
But I am sure IETF Member do not realize this?
If they were told they would understand.
Why not to invite local people free?
Why not to coordinate with local ISOC Chapters?
IETF is to be part of the real world.

Eduardo Mendez

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 10:05:20 +0200

Eduardo Mendez wrote:
...
> I understand why IETF fears local governments for their meetings.

I simply do not understand this statement. The IETF has no
concerns about governments, and we often have people in government
service who attend our meetings.  They are as welcome as any other
engineer.

 > If they were told they would understand.

What people do with technology may have good or bad effects.
That is well understood by all technologists, I think.
But this is not the place to discus the social impact
of our technology.

> Why not to invite local people free?

Because our meetings are working meetings of engineers.
Local people can contribute just like anybody else, but
then they have to pay their fair share of our costs.

> Why not to coordinate with local ISOC Chapters?

Local ISOC members are as welcome to attend the IETF
as anyone else. To my knowledge, ISOC France organized
an evening activity during the Paris IETF, for example.

> IETF is to be part of the real world.

I think it has been exactly that for almost 20 years.

    Brian

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 12:46:30 -0400

>But this is not the place to discus the social impact

I don't think I agree with that statement.  In fact, I'm fairly sure I 
do not.

		--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 20:32:25 +0200

> I don't think I agree with that statement.  In fact, I'm fairly sure I 

Steve, I'm not suggesting that technologists should duck responsibility.
But I really think there are better fora. In fact, that's one of the
reasons I've always supported the ISOC in its wider role.

     Brian

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 11:27:20 -0700 (PDT)

> I don't think I agree with that statement.  In fact, I'm fairly sure I

I certainly hope that neither you nor anyone else in the security area would
agree with it. The only way to get security right is to consider the broader
context of a particular technology, including the effects of its use. Failure
to consider such effects when designing security has to be one of the biggest
mistakes we make on a regular basis.

				Ned

I'm certain arguments can be made for non-security aspects of the technology we
produce - but security is the place where the point is glaringly obvious.

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 15:15:04 -0400

>reasons I've always supported the ISOC in its wider role.

As Ned pointed out, a lot of our technology -- especially, but not 
only, security technology -- can't be divorced from its societal 
asepcts.  When I advocate strong cryptography, I'm certainly protecting 
passwords.  But am I also protecting privacy, or am I hindering 
investigations into terrorist organizations?  Is OPES a way to localize 
content or is it a way to enable censorship?  Will charging for email 
-- or rather, the protocols for doing so -- help stop spam, or will it 
cut off the third world from the net?

Amorality among scientists, engineers, and technologists has gotten the 
world into a lot of trouble.  I prefer to think about the consequences 
of what I do.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 21:40:03 +0200

> world into a lot of trouble.  I prefer to think about the consequences

I think we all do, and I think it's one of the reasons why I felt Jefsey's 
accusations of provinciality and blinkeredness to be deeply insulting as 
well as incoherent.

But the realization that I can't expect to understand what he's driving at 
has also helped me to not waste cycles in being irritated at what he says.

I'm all for discussing the specific consequences of the specific things we 
do. But only if we can base the discussion on real facts and real people, 
not Jefsey's ramblings and sock puppets.

                     Harald

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 21:39:47 +0200

Steven M. Bellovin wrote:

> I don't think I agree with that statement.
> In fact, I'm fairly sure I do not.

Made me also nervous, unless there's some
better IETF list that I haven't found yet.

                 Bye, Frank

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 16:24:09 -0400

On 29 okt 2005, at 15.40, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> I think we all do, and I think it's one of the reasons why I felt  
> Jefsey's accusations of provinciality and blinkeredness to be  
> deeply insulting as well as incoherent.

I am not sure what he did other then send 2 pointers to articles.   
Don't quite understand how this might be insulting.

I do think there are two interesting questions:

- is the IETF community interested in discussions about the social  
implications of the technology we develop

- is the IETF general list the right place for those discussions.

I for one am interested in the topic  and think it is important for  
any tehcnological group to take a view of its social responsibility.  
But i am not sure that this list is the right place - though I don't  
mind since I can skip threads that don't interest (or bother)  me,  
but experience shows that not everyone is able to do so.  and to some  
people the topic is irrelevant.

So perhaps an ISOC list, or a specific IETF social issues list would  
be better.  At least on such a list everyone would be participating  
willingly.

a.

---

From: "Alper Yegin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 00:13:08 +0300

> implications of the technology we develop

I think this is very interesting.

> - is the IETF general list the right place for those discussions.

Is it too late to arrange a BoF meeting at IETF 64? A plenary talk may
be a good starting point too.

Alper

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 16:32:13 -0700 (PDT)

> > deeply insulting as well as incoherent.

FWIW, I agree completely with Harald's sentiment.

> Don't quite understand how this might be insulting.

Sigh. Obviously Harald isn't referring specifically to the message that started
this thread, but rather to the numerous messages Jefsey has posted previously
on this and other lists. (My records indicate he has posted well
over 200 messages this year to the LTRU list, over 100 to the ietf-languages
list, and over 200 more to the main IETF list from [email-masked] alone -
and he appears to use several other addresses as well.)

> implications of the technology we develop

As I pointed out in my previous response, if you mean do we have to consider
the societal implications of the things we develop, we have no choice if we
expect our technology to be useful and effective. It is simply not possible to
do the stuff we do correctly in a vacuum.

Now, if you're instead referring to discussing these implications independently
of the work we do and with no intention of having the outcome of those
discussions inform our work in any way, then while I guess it is fine to have a
separate list for this purpose, I see little point in it. (Perhaps this is the
sort of thing Brian meant to say was out of scope in his original response. If
so, I'm somewhat more sympathetic to his position.)

> - is the IETF general list the right place for those discussions.

It depends. I don't think the posting that started this thread was appropriate
or relevant; the only reason I joined in was to support Steve Bellovin's
assertion that such issues actually do play a vital role in what we do here.

OTOH, when someone points out a serious mismatch between how something
is designed and how something is going to be used during a last call, not
only is that completely appropriate for the main IETF list, hearing such
comments is essential.

> be better.  At least on such a list everyone would be participating

Again, having such a list is fine, but it cannot be a subsitute for considering
the societal context of the work we do as we do the work.

				Ned

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 21:15:09 +0200

Harald,
you want to feed "your favorite troll" in pretending that I accuse 
you of the contrary of why I oppose your doctrine .... This was fun a 
short while. Now it tend to be boring. Exposing that you are in the 
lead and do not understand our position on what is at hand, was my 
target. Because of your RFC 3935 principle of competence: "we are 
also constrained by the principle of competence: Where we do not 
have, and cannot gather, the competence needed to make technically 
sound standards, we should not attempt to take the leadership.

I agree and respect you for your positions and achievements, except 
over globalisation and the nature of the Internet. You want to 
exclude my position, I want to include yours everywhere it applies. 
No need for you and you cosignatories of a childish pamphlet to hurt 
more your/their image over this. Clever people have understood this 
for a long.

This being said (hopefully for the last time) ...

>But this is not the place to discus the social impact

The Internet standard process disagrees with this: possible bad 
effects MUST be discussed in security considerations.

But the IETF is not a place to organise social impacts through the 
technology. It MUST not be used as a tool to advance social changes 
along with political, commercial or private agenda. Otherwise the 
IETF will also become a place where social impacts will have to be 
prevented, while it has no adequate mechanism for that.

Since the "constitution is in the code", the IETF MUST make sure the 
code stays open and provides fair technical support to every societal 
needs and orientation, and equal opportunity to all without 
discrimination and exclusive. This is usually warranted by three 
successive consensuses (WG, IETF, IESG).

I therefore hope the effort engaged by Brian succeeds to address WG 
consensus by exhaustion, IETF consensus by abstention and IESG 
consensus by overload. Also that IAB's effort permits, may be not 
architectural changes, but at least cultural changes in the IETF 
vision of the Internet, to consider the diversity of the 6.5 billions 
potential users, before the 4200 RFCs.
jfc

---

From: Eduardo Mendez <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 18:23:57 +0100

Mr. Chair,

> service who attend our meetings.  They are as welcome as any other

The discussion is about chosing countries.
The proposition is that ITEF can discuss free.
There is a problem only if IETF fears some Governments.

> But this is not the place to discus the social impact

What IETF decides, decides for the users.
Impact is after a decision.
Can result from technical choices. OK.
Can result from disguised political choices.
This should not be possible.
How to make sure?

> then they have to pay their fair share of our costs.

I did not pay for ICANN meetings.
If you want local people be interested do like ICANN.
Otherwise why to move around? Tourism?
IETF is technical.

> an evening activity during the Paris IETF, for example.

For everyone!?

Many say they want to know
- the weather,
- the security,
- the governement,
- the rates,
- the visas,
- the liberty,
- the local network,
- a good hotel
- etc.

I am sure that ISOC could help.

> I think it has been exactly that for almost 20 years.

This is not what I want to say.
I want to say: one is always better with local help and friends.
Good meeting in Vancouver.

Eduardo Mendez

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 19:41:30 +0100

Alper Yegin wrote:
> Is it too late to arrange a BoF meeting at IETF 64?

Yes, several weeks too late.

> A plenary talk may

I think that would take a lot of careful preparation. As this
thread has shown, there is a fine line between neglecting
unintended side effects of our technology and drifting off
into discursive discussion that doen't converge on a clear
result.

But I'm not against it - it just needs to be prepared very well.

     Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 19:50:51 +0100

Steve (and Ned),

> cut off the third world from the net?

Yes. It's clear that there are cases where the social implications of
a technology have direct relevance to the IETF's technical choices, and
it's clear that such cases are in IETF scope. Security is the most obvious
area (cf RFC 1984 and RFC 2804) but there are others. But what doesn't
help us get on with our work here is discursive decision of vaguely defined
societal or cultural implications. That's what I was getting at.

> world into a lot of trouble.  I prefer to think about the consequences 

I completely agree.

    Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 19:59:53 +0100

[typo corrected to restore meaning]

Steve (and Ned),

help us get on with our work here is discursive *discussion* of vaguely defined

I completely agree.

    Brian

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 03:43:14 +0100

At 19:50 31/10/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>But what doesn't help us get on with our work here is discursive 
>decision of vaguely defined societal or cultural implications. 
>That's what I was getting at.

Dear Brian,
full agreement. Describing this way the key societal matters at hand 
certainly shows the IETF is not interested/competent and does not 
intend to invest in them. However the IETF takes leading decisions 
meant to influence or constrain SSDO having interest, competence and 
responsbility. I suggest we reread RFC 3935's principles of 
competence and of responsibility.

There may be/are societal implications of the IAB architecture and of 
the IETF technology. The ISTF has been created in parallel to IETF, 
IAB, IRTF to discuss them and advise the IAB and the IETF. I submit 
we must join forces in reviving the ISTF and the ISSG and that the 
ISSG MUST (a) produce a position or an abstain before an RFC or a 
Charter is approved by the IESG, (b) be part of the appeal chain.

I think the RFC 3066 bis controversy would have be settled for a long 
should the ISSG have reviewed the WG-ltru Charter, published internet 
multilingual support requirements, or required an inclusive rather 
than a exclusive language tagging during the IESG LC.

jfc