Subject: Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 16:19:35 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>

    > These operators are (hypothetically) Libyan citizens, right? Residents
    > of Libya who could go to jail for routing around the problem. Most
    > likely on a charge of espionage.

That worked pretty well for Qaddhafi. Oh, wait... Yes, it cost some whom he
did catch, but in the end it didn't (couldn't) save him. He was unable to cut
off the data flow (in and out).

	Noel

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 16:30:02 +0200

+1

AB

>>
>> On Aug 10, 2012, at 8:19 AM, IETF Chair wrote:
>>
>>> The IETF Chair and the IAB Chair intend to sign the Affirmation
>>> of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm, which can be found
>>> here:
>>>
>>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-iesg-opsplenary-15.pdf
>>>
>>> An earlier version was discussed in plenary, and the IAB Chair called
>>> for comments on the IETF mail list.  This version includes changes
>>> that address those comments.
>>>
>>> Th IETF 84 Administrative plenary minutes have been posted, so that
>>> discussion can be reviewed if desired.  The minutes are here:
>>>
>>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/minutes/minutes-84-iesg-opsplenary
>>>
>>> On 8 August 2012, the IEEE Standards Association Board of Governors
>>> approved this version of the document.  The approval process is
>>> underway at the W3C as well.
>>>
>>> The IETF Chair and the IAB Chair intend to sign the Affirmation in the
>>> next few weeks. Please send strong objections to the [email-masked]
>>> and the [email-masked] mailing lists by 2012-08-24.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>  Russ Housley
>>>  IETF Chair

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 13:25:05 +0200

Hi Dave,

I agree that procedure of ietf processes should be respected and
followed by all, and/or community should understand such difference in
process before asked its opinion. I hope your comments will be
considered by IETF and IAB in the future.

thanking you for your comments,

AB
 --------------------------------------------------

 From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker at bbiw.net>
 To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba at computer.org>
 Cc: IAB <iab at iab.org>, IETF <ietf at ietf.org>
 Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:50:10 -0700

> Two weeks is normal process for spontaneous consensus calls?
>
> When did the community approve that change in process?
>
> No he didn't:
>
>      "Please send strong objections..."
>
> This asserts a forceful bias against general comments and criticisms by
> establishing a very high threshhold for relevance.  While no, no one is
> prevented from other kinds of postings, the bias is nonetheless
> established.
>
> Note that he didn't ask for support, although explicit support
> statements are exactly what is required for IETF consensus calls, absent
>
> a history to justify the kind of "default yes" assumption made in the
> announcement. We don't have any such documented history for this
> effort.
> Would any of us guess that the community would support the document?
> Sure.  But guessing isn't the point.
>
>
> That folks have chosen to ignore the stricture specified in the
> announcement and to post public support shows how deeply ingrained our
> model is. And, yeah, enough such postings overwhelm problems with the
> last call wording...
>
> d/
>
> --
>  Dave Crocker
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking
>  bbiw.net
>

---

From: "GTW" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 10:45:43 -0400

another thought  for longer term considerataion ... the IETF may contemplate 
affirming the WTO principles for The Development Of International Standards 
(for interest also is the ANSI "Key Issues Impacting Global Standardization 
and Conformance: Today and Tomorrow" 
http://publicaa.ansi.org/sites/apdl/Documents/Standards%20Activities/Critical%20Issues/Key_Issues_Impacting_Global_Standardization_and_Conformance.pdf ) 
There is much overlap between the elements of the Modern Global standards 
paradigm and the WTO principles

Indeed a case might be made that  by some that while ITU itself is 
considered to be an international standards organizations it is in fact 
overstepping the coherence principle below

A.                 Decision Of The Committee On Principles For The 
Development Of International Standards, Guides And Recommendations With 
Relation To Articles 2, 5 And Annex 3 Of The Agreement
Decision[1]

1.                   The following principles and procedures should be 
observed, when international standards, guides and recommendations (as 
mentioned under Articles 2, 5 and Annex 3 of the TBT Agreement for the 
preparation of mandatory technical regulations, conformity assessment 
procedures and voluntary standards) are elaborated, to ensure transparency, 
openness, impartiality and consensus, effectiveness and relevance, 
coherence, and to address the concerns of developing countries.

2.                   The same principles should also be observed when 
technical work or a part of the international standard development is 
delegated under agreements or contracts by international standardizing 
bodies to other relevant organizations, including regional bodies.

1.                  Transparency
3.                   All essential information regarding current work 
programmes, as well as on proposals for standards, guides and 
recommendations under consideration and on the final results should be made 
easily accessible to at least all interested parties in the territories of 
at least all WTO Members.  Procedures should be established so that adequate 
time and opportunities are provided for written comments.  The information 
on these procedures should be effectively disseminated.

4.                   In providing the essential information,  the 
transparency procedures should, at a minimum, include:

(a)               the publication of a notice at an early appropriate stage, 
in such a manner as to enable interested parties to become acquainted with 
it, that the international standardizing body proposes to develop a 
particular standard;

(b)               the notification or other communication through 
established mechanisms to members of the international standardizing body, 
providing a brief description of the scope of the draft standard, including 
its objective and rationale.  Such communications shall take place at an 
early appropriate stage, when amendments can still be introduced and 
comments taken into account;

(c)               upon request, the prompt provision to members of the 
international standardizing body of the text of the draft standard;

(d)               the provision of an adequate period of time for interested 
parties in the territory of at least all members of the international 
standardizing body to make comments in writing and take these written 
comments into account in the further consideration of the standard;

(e)               the prompt publication of a standard upon adoption;  and

(f)                to publish periodically a work programme containing 
information on the standards currently being prepared and adopted.

5.                   It is recognized that the publication and communication 
of notices, notifications, draft standards, comments, adopted standards or 
work programmes electronically, via the Internet, where feasible, can 
provide a useful means of ensuring the timely provision of information.  At 
the same time, it is also recognized that the requisite technical means may 
not be available in some cases, particularly with regard to developing 
countries.  Accordingly, it is important that procedures are in place to 
enable hard copies of such documents to be made available upon request.

2.                  Openness
6.                   Membership of an international standardizing body 
should be open on a non-discriminatory basis to relevant bodies of at least 
all WTO Members.  This would include openness without discrimination with 
respect to the participation at the policy development level and at every 
stage of standards development, such as the:

(a)               proposal and acceptance of new work items;

(b)               technical discussion on proposals;

(c)               submission of comments on drafts in order that they can be 
taken into account;

(d)               reviewing existing standards;

(e)               voting and adoption of standards;  and

(f)                dissemination of the adopted standards.

7.                   Any interested member of the international 
standardizing body, including especially developing country Members, with an 
interest in a specific standardization activity should be provided with 
meaningful opportunities to participate at all stages of standard 
development.  It is noted that with respect to standardizing bodies within 
the territory of a WTO Member that have accepted the Code of Good Practice 
for the Preparation, Adoption and Application of Standards by Standardizing 
Bodies (Annex 3 of the TBT Agreement) participation in a particular 
international standardization activity takes place, wherever possible, 
through one delegation representing all standardizing bodies in the 
territory that have adopted, or expected to adopt, standards for the 
subject-matter to which the international standardization activity relates. 
This is illustrative of the importance of participation in the international 
standardizing process accommodating all relevant interests.

3.                  Impartiality and Consensus
8.                   All relevant bodies of WTO Members should be provided 
with meaningful opportunities to contribute to the elaboration of an 
international standard so that the standard development process will not 
give privilege to, or favour the interests of, a particular supplier/s, 
country/ies or region/s. Consensus procedures should be established that 
seek to take into account the views of all parties concerned and to 
reconcile any conflicting arguments.

9.                   Impartiality should be accorded throughout all the 
standards development process with respect to, among other things:

(a)               access to participation in work;

(b)               submission of comments on drafts;

(c)               consideration of views expressed and comments made;

(d)               decision-making through consensus;

(e)               obtaining of information and documents;

(f)                dissemination of the international standard;

(g)               fees charged for documents;

(h)               right to transpose the international standard into a 
regional or national standard;  and

(i)                 revision of the international standard.

4.                  Effectiveness and Relevance
10.               In order to serve the interests of the WTO membership in 
facilitating international trade and preventing unnecessary trade barriers, 
international standards need to be relevant and to effectively respond to 
regulatory and market needs, as well as scientific and technological 
developments in various countries.  They should not distort the global 
market, have adverse effects on fair competition, or stifle innovation and 
technological development.  In addition, they should not give preference to 
the characteristics or requirements of specific countries or regions when 
different needs or interests exist in other countries or regions.  Whenever 
possible, international standards should be performance based rather than 
based on design or descriptive characteristics.

11.               Accordingly, it is important that international 
standardizing bodies:

(a)               take account of relevant regulatory or market needs, as 
feasible and appropriate, as well as scientific and technological 
developments in the elaboration of standards;

(b)               put in place procedures aimed at identifying and reviewing 
standards that have become obsolete, inappropriate or ineffective for 
various reasons;  and

(c)               put in place procedures aimed at improving communication 
with the World Trade Organization.

5.                  Coherence
12.               In order to avoid the development of conflicting 
international standards, it is important that international standardizing 
bodies avoid duplication of, or overlap with, the work of other 
international standardizing bodies.  In this respect, cooperation and 
coordination with other relevant international bodies is essential.

6.                  Development Dimension
13.               Constraints on developing countries, in particular, to 
effectively participate in standards development, should be taken into 
consideration in the standards development process.  Tangible ways of 
facilitating developing countries' participation in international standards 
development should be sought.  The impartiality and openness of any 
international standardization process requires that developing countries are 
not excluded de facto from the process.  With respect to improving 
participation by developing countries, it may be appropriate to use 
technical assistance, in line with Article 11 of the TBT Agreement. 
Provisions for capacity building and technical assistance within 
international standardizing bodies are important in this context.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] G/TBT/9, 13 November 2000, para. 20 and Annex 4.

George T. Willingmyre, P.E.
www.gtwassociates.com
301 421 4138
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "GTW" <[email-masked]>
To: "IETF" <[email-masked]>; "IAB" <[email-masked]>; "IETF-Announce" 
<[email-masked]>
Cc: "IAB" <[email-masked]>; "IETF" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2012 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

>I support the thrust of the "Modern Global Standards Paradigm"  It is 
>particularly timely  as the US formally prepares for meetings of the ITU 
>and CITEL and there are some aspirations from some members and staff at ITU 
>inconsistent with the market based approach to standards setting the 
>document embraces.  I support IETF Chair and the IAB Chair signing such a 
>document.
>
> While I am content with the wording of the section on IP  this text  is 
> nevertheless imprecise.
>
> clip from 
> 4. Availability. Standards specifications are made accessible to all for
>
> implementation and deployment. Affirming standards organizations have 
> defined
>
> procedures to develop specifications that can be implemented under fair 
> terms.
>
> Given market diversity, fair terms may vary from royalty-free (especially 
> where
>
> open source is commonplace) to fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory 
> terms
>
> (FRAND).
>
>
>
> end clip
>
> If there were time for tweaking it would be helpful.  What are time 
> constraints?   The first sentence  seems to be describing the availability 
> of specifications to users ... this is the issue of copyrights and fees 
> charged for copies of standards.  Specifications have to be available to 
> users under reasonable terms but not necessarily for free.  But the words 
> are not clear that is what is being addressed. The second sentence seems 
> to describe that   licenses to practice essential patent claims related to 
> a standards  are available under "fair terms"  However the global patent 
> policy concept generally is  that such licenses should be available under 
> "reasonable and non discriminatory" terms.   The single  term 
> "reasonable and non discriminatory" covers  the situation where there may 
> be a "fee" involved or not.  There may be  non fee based terms in what 
> other wise be called "royalty free" licenses It is not that RAND and FRAND 
> are different from "royalty free" It is that "royalty free"  falls under 
> the overall condition of  fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory term 
> when there may be non royalty terms involved.  Sometimes the "royalty 
> free" situation is described as  "RAND(0)"   I   am also curious about the 
> IETF experience with its patent policy.  What is further background  to 
> the statement that "often our IPR terms at  IETF end up being much worse 
> than that."  The comments below that the paragraph does not  accurately 
> describe the IETF experience are worrisome.
>
> clip from 
> Cullen Jennings: I was just noting that the IPR terms vary from RF to
> FRAND. I wish that was true. But I think that often our IPR terms at
> IETF end up being much worse than that.
>
> Russ: Understand.
>
> Leslie Daigle: I wanted just to help you out a bit by popping up a
> level and giving the broader context of this whole statement. You have
> alluded to the fact that it was born from discussions with a number of
> organizations. Everyone should appreciate that Russ is presenting today
> something that he thinks is viable for the IETF. The challenge has been
> that indeed the words have been discussed extensively for a period of
> time and there was fairly wide divergence exactly on the point that
> Cullen just mentioned. Have been seeking terminology that says something
> positive about how to do things, and also encompasses a broad range of
> ways that different organizations do things. We are very different from
> the WC3, which is very different from the IEEE. But we are trying to
> capture things that are positive, constructive, new -- as compared to
> the establishment, if you will, of the SDO world. So that has been the
> challenge. Having input from people in terms of support or not is
> probably quite useful. The document -- and I will personally take
> responsibility for some of this -- is not in the best English ever. So,
> some of the comments on it would be better if it were written this way,
> you'll get a polite smile and a nod, and we will take that into
> consideration in the next iteration. So, just by way of context, it is
> a joint effort, and I hope we are capturing something useful that
> expresses something the community believes in. Because personally, I
> think the really novel thing is to stand up and say, there are formal
> standards development organization in the world, and there are other
> organizations that get together and are doing something that is
> slightly different, being driven by different motivations. We are
> seeking technical excellence, are dedicated to being open, are
> dedicated to providing standards that will be built by industry. And
> that isn't an immature form. We are hoping not to grow up into the
> more traditional form. We are trying to make a statement so that more
> people understand that this is a real thing, and that it is valuable.
>
> Scott Bradner: I made some comments on this document to the authors. I
> think it is a very important thing to say, for the reasons that Leslie
> just described. But I do worry that it has to be accurate. And I do
> believe that the specific text of the IPR section is not accurate, when
> it comes to the IETF. And could be used against us because it is not
> what we do.
>
> Russ: Thank you, and I can tell you that those words are still under
> discussion. The concerns that Cullen any you raised are representative
> of a comment that I have already shared with the people trying to put
> this to together
>
> end clip
>
> George T. Willingmyre, P.E.
> www.gtwassociates.com
> 301 421 4138
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "IETF Chair" <[email-masked]>
> To: "IETF-Announce" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "IAB" <[email-masked]>; "IETF" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 11:19 AM
> Subject: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
>
>
>>