IAB Response to the Appeal Regarding RFC 6852 by JFC Morfin
IAB Chair <iab-chair@iab.org> Wed, 17 July 2013 15:11 UTC
Return-Path: <iab-chair@iab.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-announce@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-announce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FA3721E8087; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 08:11:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.321
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.321 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.278, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uiSV260a1WgO; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 08:11:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.amsl.com (mail.amsl.com [IPv6:2001:1890:126c::1:15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52B7221E8086; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 08:11:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c9a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A14DA8A1C; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 08:10:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from c9a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c9a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JT5949twica8; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 08:10:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.109] (pool-96-241-212-98.washdc.fios.verizon.net [96.241.212.98]) by c9a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CE5EAA8A1A; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 08:10:41 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: IAB Response to the Appeal Regarding RFC 6852 by JFC Morfin
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
From: IAB Chair <iab-chair@iab.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 11:11:23 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2BAB5B56-5F1F-4AC1-9A16-C78115D94F02@iab.org>
To: JFC Morfin <jefsey@jefsey.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
Cc: IAB <iab@iab.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, IETF Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf-announce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org, IAB <iab@iab.org>
List-Id: "IETF announcement list. No discussions." <ietf-announce.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-announce>, <mailto:ietf-announce-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-announce@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-announce-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce>, <mailto:ietf-announce-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 15:11:26 -0000
The appeal from Mr. Morfin was received on 8 July 2013; it can be found here: http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2013/07/appeal-morfin-2013-07-08.pdf. Mr. Morfin's appeal concerns RFC 6852. While the appeal does not state any objection to any of the content of RFC 6852, Mr. Morfin wishes that RFC 6852 included additional principles and a global framework. In addition, Mr. Morfin calls for a way for additional organizations to "sign on" to the expanded principle list and the desired global framework. RFC 6852 contains five principles that are strongly supported by five organizations. The principles were the result of significant coordination among these organizations. Mr. Morfin's preferred remedy has two points. First, Mr. Morfin calls for publication of a statement or RFC that expands on RFC 6852, preferably in conjunction with other organizations and governments. Mr. Morfin believes that there are currently two models for the evolution of the Internet. One is based on the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), and the other is based on the principles in RFC 6852. Mr. Morfin would like to see these two merged. Second, Mr. Morfin calls for the creation of an inter-SDO procedure to maintain the RFC 6852 principles and allow civil society, governments, and international organizations to "sign on" to these principles. The IAB believes that a formal appeal is the wrong mechanism to achieve these goals. Appeals are to bring to light and correct errors in process and/or substance. Here neither is alleged. Thus, no action is needed by the IAB as a formal response to this appeal. Future suggestions from the community are welcome through mail to the IAB <iab at iab.org> or through the RFC publication process.