Subject: IAB statement on the NETmundial Initiative

From: IAB Chair <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 10:57:51 -0500

Please find this statement issued by the IAB today.

On behalf of the IAB,
 Russ Housley
 IAB Chair

= = = = = = = = = = = = =

IAB statement on the NETmundial Initiative

The IAB thinks it is valuable to develop tools to support communities
that can share solutions, expertise, and research related to Internet
Governance.  We welcomed the initial NETmundial meeting as an additional
way to foster the development of a broadly based community engaged in
supporting the Internet's distributed systems and methods.  We believe
that the recent NETmundial Initiative
(https://www.netmundial.org/press-release-1) to develop a long-running
dialogue on these topics, in the form of a web site and collection of
materials, may be a valuable addition to the overall community efforts.

We are concerned, however, that the creation of a highly structured
coordination council for the Initiative may impede the development of
broad participation, and so may be premature.  Because the coordination
council members appear to be the responsible parties for the effort, the
effort may not foster the sort of community engagement that we believe is
fundamental to the Internet's distributed nature and the NETmundial
principles (https://www.netmundial.org/principles).

To make the Internet work, many people with unique perspectives of the
Internet and from different communities must cooperate.  We believe a
broadly based dialogue among all these communities is necessary, and
support any effort to enable this dialogue.  The permissionless
innovation given as the goal of this effort is better served by first
enabling technical infrastructure to further that cooperation; that
might require some lightweight administration driven by community
consensus.  No coordination council is needed now, and therefore the IAB
will not participate in the council at this time.

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 13:57:50 -0500

I am a little confused by this proposal.

The statement of principles seems relatively unobjectionable. But
there seems to be rather less information on specific objectives and
virtually none on how those objectives would be achieved.

There is a proposal for a council but no information on how the
members are to be appointed or what the source or scope of their
authority will be.

There are three questions of power: How did you get it? Whose
interests do you serve when you use it? and How do we get rid of you?
I don't see answers to any of those questions in the documents
provided.

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 15:07:44 -0500

Just to be clear, what I am unclear about is the Netmundial Initiative and
in particular the role of this proposed council.

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 06:45:31 +0100

Hi Phillip,

On 12/4/14, 9:07 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> Just to be clear, what I am unclear about is the Netmundial Initiative
> and in particular the role of this proposed council.

First, it seems that the Netmundial Initiative (NMI) is evolving.  We on
the IAB don't have more information than what's on their web and their
public statements, but here is what I gather.

At its core, at least at the moment, it is an online platform for
discussion of issues relating to Internet governance.  One of the first
tasks they have set themselves is to map the space, in terms of who is
doing what where (what they call enablers).  The other is to provide
best practices for local Internet governance.  There are many aspects of
governance that help the Interne succeed, and CGI.br who are one of the
sponsors want to share their views and hear from others on that point. 
The World Economic Forum (WEF) believes there is value in expanding the
discussion beyond the tech sector, and they believe they can facilitate
that aspect.  Fostering dialog about these sorts of issues is a good
thing, because it leads to improved understanding by the participants.

So why the need for a council?  Well, obviously we the IAB don't believe
there is such a need.  It's quite heavy weight for an online platform,
but I believe at least one of the reasons they did it was to show high
level support for the activity.  *Some* lightweight approaches to
managing conversations that are driven by the community will probably be
needed to address what I call an impedance mismatch between the
different styles of communication that people from different communities
are used to, and to understand what the conclusion of a conversation
is.  We even have mechanisms like that for the IETF.  Determining rough
consensus is the primary one.  Thomas Narten's weekly Post'Ometer is
another.  Our sergeant-at-arms mechanism is yet a third.  Our experience
shows all of those mechanisms are best driven by the community/customers
of the service.

A few of us will monitor where this goes, if anywhere.  There have been
a number of attempts already at this sort of activity.  Some like the
Internet Governance Forum enjoy some success.  Others have fallen flat. 
To early to say about this one, really.  I think one key aspect will be
that the activity has to cover ground that the other activities not only
aren't covering, but can't easily expand to cover.

Anyway, hope this helps.

Eliot

> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker
> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>

---

From: Seth Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 01:32:09 -0500

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 12:45 AM, Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I think one key aspect will be that the
> activity has to cover ground that the other activities not only aren't
> covering, but can't easily expand to cover.

A lesson learned.  But for all of us, the good thing is at least that
now there's a new chance to proceed properly.  NMI had to discover
this piece of hubris for itself. (Of course it's not clear yet we will
proceed in a better way.)

Seth

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 08:29:35 -0500

> proceed in a better way.)

The core problems are representation and accountability. To understand
whose interests any proposed body would represent have to understand who
would appoint and dismiss them.

The problem with communications governance is that the politicians are the
principal party that the people need protection from. And not just in the
third world either. Google 'Elm Guest House Monday Club' to see one example
why.

It is not widely known but the ITU has its origins in a cartel of telegraph
companies who were anxious to stamp out the use of 'codes' to shorten
messages in the days when you paid by the word. Not only has it never
represented the interests of the users, it was set up for precisely the
opposite reason.

---

From: Seth Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 11:07:03 -0500

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> The core problems are representation and accountability.

"Accountability" understood properly.  "Checks and balances" aren't
grounded properly in the international arena.  And representation
isn't the rest of the story.  You want to do things in a stewardship
context as much like we've enjoyed as possible -- and how to get that
is the thing.  Eliot's not really getting it by offering the notion
that it's about sets of activities, and declaring that some can't
(easily) expand to cover others.  Not really.  We can certainly see
the problem with NMI as in part not building it properly in "MS terms"
or more full "democracy terms" (and getting that right is at the
center, as the appropriate practical and theoretical issue), but also
in the way of thinking of many operators in the international arena,
which ;ed the to think they could add things onto the "MS branding" of
NM.br after the fact, with maybe a boost from WEF to help it along.
There are lessons to learn both by those who are accustomed to things
working a certain way in the international arena, and by those who are
presently just starting their attempts to step out there with the
Internet.  Sure, there's the aspect that once you start thinking about
governance issues, you're talking about things that have not been part
of the discussion in some places. But the "activities" can figure
things out, so long as they start thinking more clearly about what's
happening when you hand off to the international arena.  And the
problem is how to get it to work as much like it has worked as
possible.

Seth

> To understand

---

From: IAB Chair <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 11:49:05 -0500

Jari and I were invited to join representatives of the Internet Society Board and the ICANN Board at a meeting last week.  There were two topics: the IANA Stewardship Transition and the NETmundial Initiative.  After the meeting, Bob Hinden and Steve Crocker released a statement.  Here is a link to their statement: http://www.internetsociety.org/news/joint-statement-isoc-icann-meeting

Best wishes for a joy filled holiday season,
  Russ Housley
  IAB Chair

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 12:55:55 -0500

--On Sunday, 21 December, 2014 11:49 -0500 IAB Chair
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Jari and I were invited to join representatives of the
> Internet Society Board and the ICANN Board at a meeting last
> week.  There were two topics: the IANA Stewardship Transition
> and the NETmundial Initiative.  After the meeting, Bob Hinden
> and Steve Crocker released a statement.  Here is a link to
> their statement:
> http://www.internetsociety.org/news/joint-statement-isoc-icann
> -meeting

Russ,

I continue to be concerned about the appearance of "statements"
from small group meetings and their possible interpretations
relative to our commitment to broad, bottom-up, community
consensus processes.  This one seems innocuous at worst but, if
these sorts of meetings are going to continue, and continue to
release statements, I hope you can encourage your colleagues to
make those statements absolutely clear about who is making them
and on what authority.  When I first read it, I assumed it was a
statement by the group present at the meeting and presumably
speaking for their respective organizations.  Now that you have
mentioned "Bob Hinden
> and Steve Crocker released a statement", I can certainly see
it that way.  However, especially against a background that some
of us interpret as deliberate misinterpretations by a few
individuals of support and consensus, it is each to get from
sentence fragments like "representatives ... met to discuss...",
"Everyone agreed that...", "We agreed to further strengthen our
joint efforts...", could easily cause the statement to be
interpreted as a consensus one, even though only Steve and Bob
signed it.

No complaints about this one, but I continue to believe that
small, closed, invitation-only meetings like this create
vulnerabilities when they are followed by "statements".  I
therefore hope that, to the extent possible, great care be taken
that such statements either reflect the procedures and norms of
each body that is in any sense represented or that they are
extremely explicit about in whose name and on what authority
they are made.

best,
   john

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 17:20:12 +0200

John, 

What you said is very similar to the input we’ve been hearing from both the IESG and IAB. And even Russ and I understand the difficulties :-) regardless of how well we managed to succeed in this case.

For what it is worth, our general policy is based on establishing IAB or IETF wide formal opinions on topics and then talking about those, and other kinds of statements should be rare. For a written version of our policy, se http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/SpeakingForIetf - feedback appreciated as always.

Jari

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 19:35:17 +0100

At 17:49 21/12/2014, IAB Chair wrote:
>Jari and I were invited to join representatives of the Internet 
>Society Board and the ICANN Board at a meeting last week.  There 
>were two topics: the IANA Stewardship Transition and the NETmundial 
>Initiative.  After the meeting, Bob Hinden and Steve Crocker 
>released a statement.  Here is a link to their statement: 
>http://www.internetsociety.org/news/joint-statement-isoc-icann-meeting

Dear Russ,

these a minima I*core meetings seem to be less and less 
representative of, and concerned by, the omni-stake-holder global 
communities' multitechnological catenet stability. May I remind you 
my main concern which is the compatility between the various 
AMERICANN, GOVCANNs and CORPCANNs strategies, plug-ins and/or add-ons 
and new developments like NDN, SDNs, etc. in a permissionless 
innovation referentless competition context. This can only push us to 
consider more and more actively our own Libre MYCANN plug-in fail 
safe plan for our personnal networking.

Seasons greetings and concerns.
jfc

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 11:33:50 -0500

--On Monday, December 22, 2014 17:20 +0200 Jari Arkko
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> John, 
> 
> What you said is very similar to the input we've been
> hearing from both the IESG and IAB. And even Russ and I
> understand the difficulties :-) regardless of how well we
> managed to succeed in this case.
> 
> For what it is worth, our general policy is based on
> establishing IAB or IETF wide formal opinions on topics and
> then talking about those, and other kinds of statements should
> be rare. For a written version of our policy, se
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/SpeakingForIet
> f - feedback appreciated as always.

Jari,

As I tried to say, I don't know that this example is a huge deal
because the statement is mostly innocuous.  I gather that was
partially due to your efforts and Russ's, for which the
community should thank you.  It is the principle that concerns
me.

Where the policy you cite seems to be weak is "what happens when
the IETF/IAB people follow the rules but attend a meeting in
good faith in which others are not willing to honor those
rules".  Establishing general for first instances of such cases
is probably impossible.  I fear that any attempt to do so would
hamper us and the exercise of reasonable discretion far more
than they would help.  I believe you are doing quite well in the
exercise of discretion even though "leadership" seems to
occasionally get confused with presidential or imperial
authority (I think we all learned from Montevideo).  If members
of the community disagree with that, it is perhaps not too late
to tell the Nomcom.

However, an old saying in the US may apply to this situation.
It goes something like "fool me once, shame on you; fool me
twice, shame on me".  If, despite your (and Russ's) best
efforts, these I* (or other leadership coordination) meetings
are going to produce statements that can reasonably be construed
as inconsistent with IETF norms, then, whatever the value of
such meetings might be, it is time to stop attending --and
adding IETF/IAB credibility by your presence-- unless you can
get firm guarantees, in advance, about whether statements will
be issued and, if they will be, how they are approved.

best regards and best holiday wishes,
   john

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 23 Dec 2014 02:47:28 -0000

>be issued and, if they will be, how they are approved.

Good luck with those firm guarantees.

I don't see much benefit in staying away, since that just means the
conspirators will conspire out of our sight.  But it appears that our
leadership may often find themselves in places where they'll have to
say that they went to the meeting, and they will report back to the
IETF and/or IAB, but they cannot bind their organizations and hence
cannot sign whatever the communique says.  I do not envy them the
complaints this will provoke from everyone else at the meeting, but
that's why we pay them those big bucks.

The GAC at ICANN is often like that, they send a rep who can talk but
can't sign off on anything without getting consensus from the full
GAC, which is not easily obtained.  The rest of ICANN finds this
extremely irritating and wishes the GAC would act like other groups,
but they won't, and it's just as well.

R's,
John

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 11:39:36 +0000

> that's why we pay them those big bucks.

Like many folk on this list, I suspect, I have a long memory of being
assured that my concern about X happening is completely unwarranted, then
many years later being told that 'everyone' understood that X would happen
and implicitly agreed to it.