Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050420192525.040b4b10@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:14:31 +0200
To: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <42667280.1050909@zurich.ibm.com>
References: <20050419124817.10D6386AE8@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050419151341.0df7bdd0@mail.jefsey.com>
	<42667280.1050909@zurich.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Voting (again)
Precedence: list
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

At 17:17 20/04/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
>...
>>I submit that the IETF and the Internet standard process suffer from 
>>federalism, and would bluntly develop from confederalism,
>
>Both the American federation and the Swiss confederation leave certain matters
>to the (con)federal government: especially foreign relations (liaisons in 
>our case)
>and inter-state commerce (cross-Area review).

Obviously this depends on countries and times. The real difference is that 
the daily sovereignty is with the Federation or with the States of the 
Confederation. For example, at the UN or ITU the USA have one vote, the 
Members of Europe one each. This translates into simple daily issues: in 
the USA the FBI has a Federation-wide jurisdiction (priority?), this would 
be the same in a Federal Europe. In a confederal Europe (as today) there is 
no FBI but a coordination of the polices at top level, etc.

A confederal approach calls for architectural issues to be clearly 
documented and agreed, and a quasi total autonomy of the confedered 
entities. What means more mutual control. There is no hierarchy but 
subsidiarity. For the IETF it would mean a documented Internet 
architectural model serving as clear communications/information support 
framework, a far more important autonomy but also a far more developed 
dialog between WGs. A confederal approach would give far more 
responsibilities to WGs, but also more exposure to their members. What 
would probably be more motivating should a better press coverage be 
organized. But it would also permit different solutions to be pursued in 
parallel. This coopetition could better foster innovation. IESG and IAB 
would be considered as services to the WG. I know that this kind of 
concerted relations has no term to describe it in English (French 
"concertation") and has been imposed in "Eurospeak".

Dictionary.com:
concertation: \Con`cer*ta"tion\, n. [L. concertatio.] Strife; contention. 
[Obs.] --Bailey.
French
to concert how to independently act in synergy
jfc  


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf