Subject: Re: [Raven] One post only

From: "P.J. Ponder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Dec 1999 17:34:39 -0500 (EST)

On Sat, 25 Dec 1999 [email-masked] wrote:

> OK, I have followed this list with some amusement and some amazement 
> for some time.  I don't intend to get into a long thread, but a single 
> post (probably as off-topic as most) seems in order:
> 
> Has it occured to anyone that there is no such thing as "The 
> IETF/IESG"; it is us, directly and through those we elect.

There actually is some structure and organization to the IETF, the IESG,
and the ISOC (not to mention ISTF, IRTF, &c.).  At one time there may have
been no such thing as the IETF - as a corporate entity - but I think today
there is.  

The IETF has not had to deal with any really tough legal issues yet, but
those days are probably drawing to a close.  There is too much money on
the wire, too many people connected, and too many potential conflicts
between jurisdictions over basic things like taxes, morality, access,
freedom of expression, and on and on.  The matter being discussed here may
force people to think about the Internet in extra-jurisdictional terms. 

Maybe the IETF, as a corporate body, or the ISOC, as a parent corporation,
are not capable, politically, of saying 'No' to the US government and its
allies on the issue of wiretaps.  If that turns out to be the case, what
will the members do?  What will the workgroups do?  Can we organize and
run a functioning network engineering group without the overhead, and
political liability, of the corporate body?  We did once.  

If the corporate organization splits from a significant number of members
on wiretaps, or taxes, or whatever the knotty problem is, will the basic
protocols become fractured into 'legal' and 'outlaw' versions?  Will the
Internet itself (like UNIX) branch into two or more separate and distinct
infrastructures?  Save me a seat with the Morlocks.

> Has it occured to anyone that there is no such thing as "The State"; it 
> is us, directly or through those who represent us. (For the countries 
> discussed on this list, that is via election).
> 
> Therefore, the IETF/IESG probably should and will not get involved in 
> wiretap standards, since its constituent members feel that way.
> 
> Therefore, countries where the constituent citizens feel the need to do 
> so, will have laws enabling wire taps.
> 
> Anyone who dislikes either of those two outcomes can work to change the 
> minds of the constituents that make up the group.
> 
> "I am on the outside and have nothing to do with this" arguments don't 
> cut it.
> 
> Have a happy holiday!
> 
> ----------------------
> Hans Kruse, Associate Professor, Director
> McClure School of Communication Systems Management
> Ohio University
> [email-masked] 740-593-4891 voice, 740-593-4889 fax
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> raven mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/raven
> 

_______________________________________________
raven mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/raven

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Dec 1999 20:06:46 -0500 (EST)

nit 

> Maybe the IETF, as a corporate body

ain't no such corporation

Scott