gendispatch S. Hoffmann
Internet-Draft M. Blachut
Intended status: Informational UK DSIT
Expires: 13 July 2024 10 January 2024
Policy experts are IETF stakeholders
draft-hoffmann-gendispatch-policy-stakeholders-03
Abstract
The IETF's work has significance for communities concerned with
societal, economic, and political outcomes, though barriers to
engagement with the IETF exist for non-technical experts from these
communities. This informational document introduces a problem
statement and gap analysis of existing initiatives related to policy
expert engagement in the IETF. It aims to be a resource for anyone
interested in working to enable policy expert engagement in IETF
standardisation.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 13 July 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Hoffmann & Blachut Expires 13 July 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Policy experts are IETF stakeholders January 2024
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Problem statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4. Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Identifying solutions and ways forward . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction
The openness of processes is one of the defining characteristics of
the IETF and its work to develop and improve the Internet. The
success of IETF standards is underpinned by the ability of the
community to bring together diverse individuals with a range of
relevant expertise - including stakeholders from industry, academia,
civil society, and government.
Across the IETF community, and over time, the challenge of putting
this into practice has been noted, for example: in the IETF mission
statement [RFC3935] and the openStand principles signed up to by the
IETF and IAB [OPENSTAND]; the charter and work of the Education, and
Outreach directorate[EODIR]; in the Tao of the IETF [TAO]; in
[RFC8890]: The Internet is for the end user; by members of the
community [I-D.draft-gont-diversity-analysis]; The Human Rights and
Protocol Considerations Research Group in the IRTF[HRPC]; and in
other groups that participate in and around the IETF, such as The
Public Interest Technology Group[PITG].
These all recognise the wider context of standardisation, and the
value in involving a diverse set of inputs as part of open processes.
The decisions made in the IETF have the potential to create ripple-
effects across the globe. We are increasingly reliant on the
Internet for virtually every facet of life, and many stakeholders are
actively working to increase access to the Internet. The success of
the Internet is built on open standards. Increasingly, the decisions
we take when developing Internet standards are also policy decisions
with trade-offs and implications that are inherently social rather
than purely technical.
Hoffmann & Blachut Expires 13 July 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Policy experts are IETF stakeholders January 2024
Multistakeholder approaches help to develop standards in ways that
reflect a balance of various considerations, on the basis of relevant
expertise. Alongside technical expertise in domains like routing,
security, or operations, wider expertise and experience with regard
to the societal, economic, and geopolitical impacts of
standardisation can fruitfully contribute to the IETF's work.
Policy experts are individuals who have expertise in domains relevant
to public policy, and engage in support of the public interest. They
can come from a wide range of stakeholder groups. The best policy
approaches to Internet issues are developed through multistakeholder
processes that exemplify the diverse and unique contributions of
policy and technical experts from civil society, academia, industry
and governments.
The IETF already carries out work with great significance for policy,
societal and economic outcomes, but there is still more to do in
improving ways of working between policy experts and technical
experts.
Policy communities bring a distinct, relevant, and useful perspective
to the IETF's work, but face a unique set of challenges in
contributing to standards development. On this basis, the IETF
community should consider how to better draw on the expertise of, and
engage, policy communities in standards development.
The aim of this draft is to document the problem space and identify
potential ways forward to foster better technical and policy
discussions within the IETF and strengthen ways of working in the
process. We elaborate non-goals to help guide further discussions on
the problem statement and way forward.
2. Problem statement
We start from the premise that the IETF benefits in two main ways
from the incorporation of non-technical expertise, and that these
benefits are sufficient to justify further work to enable
constructive engagement between the IETF and policy communities.
The first benefit is to the IETF's contribution to the ecosystem of
global Internet governance through the development of the Internet's
open standards. There is a need to strengthen the IETF in this
critical role as other standards bodies and actors look to use
different fora to develop and influence Internet protocol standards,
at the risk of undermining the Internet's openness and
interoperability.
Hoffmann & Blachut Expires 13 July 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Policy experts are IETF stakeholders January 2024
The second benefit is to the ability of IETF standards to take
account of their various real-world impacts, and weigh these during
the development process. Learning from other multistakeholder
processes and better incorporating a wider range of expertise can
help make IETF standards more robust, identify global deployment
barriers, and raise the IETF's profile, making the IETF community
better connected globally.
To ensure we are benefitting from the contributions of individuals
with policy expertise in the IETF, a range of challenges need to be
addressed, including:
* Improving communication between the IETF and policy communities
outside the IETF
* Upskilling and education of policy experts to meaningfully engage
in the IETF
* Building community and a culture that enables policy and technical
experts to work together
* Coordination across separate but related initiatives within the
IETF, IAB, and IRTF in support of these aims.
2.1. Communication
The interaction between standards, regulation, policy, and other
initiatives can create issues where stakeholders are not aware of
proposals that may have significant impacts on their work. There are
limited channels for early communication, or regular dialogue of
affected stakeholders. This limits the ability for policy
stakeholders to contribute early in the standards process, or
likewise to raise awareness of policy initiatives that may have
implications for standardisation.
Likewise, the interaction between different SDOs and global Internet
governance fora can create duplication, tension, or fragmentation
where there are not sufficient means for staying informed of
developments in relevant areas, sharing technical and policy
expertise, and aligning strategic plans. Communications and
engagement from relevant bodies such as ICANN, other SDOs, UN
agencies, or multistakeholder governance fora are important in this
respect. These processes between the IETF and other bodies are, to
an extent, currently reliant on individuals engaging across a range
of fora.
Hoffmann & Blachut Expires 13 July 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Policy experts are IETF stakeholders January 2024
Effective and timely communication into and projected out from the
IETF, IAB and IRTF to the wider community can be strengthened and
would help enable awareness of the importance of the IETF's work,
earlier identification of issues and opportunities, as well as
institutional relationships in and around IETF work.
2.2. Education
Not all interactions between standards and policy communities will
require policy experts to engage directly in the IETF's standards
process, but where this is necessary there are challenges for policy
experts wishing to constructively contribute in the IETF. These
include knowing when to engage in emerging standards work, difficulty
in understanding ways of working, lack of technical knowledge and
where and how to engage effectively.
Opportunities for policy and technical communities around the IETF to
mutually build a better understanding of the intersection between
technology and policy have also been noted as an area to strengthen.
2.3. Community
Standards organisations, like most other types of groups, each have
their own specific ways of working and unique culture. The IETF as
an organisation and a community has a strong shared identity, rooted
in its history, culture, axioms, and even language. Traditionally,
elements of this culture have made it difficult for various groups,
including newcomers or policy experts, to share their views,
including on topics deemed to be non-technical or political.
In this environment, and without spaces to bring relevant policy-
related discussions to the interlinked communities that make up the
IETF, there is added complexity for those looking to contribute their
expertise to the IETF's work from non-traditional or non-technical
perspectives, and strengthen communities of technical and policy
experts and enable meaningful collaboration in the IETF context.
2.4. Coordination
There are a number of related initiatives and groups within the IETF
which have remits relevant to upskilling policy experts, improving
insights and knowledge on policy issues, and incorporating this
knowledge into the IETF standards process. However, if these efforts
are not effectively coordinated it will be hard for the IETF to make
progress towards addressing the challenges of incorporating policy
expertise.
Hoffmann & Blachut Expires 13 July 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Policy experts are IETF stakeholders January 2024
For productive engagement to happen, experts need to know that
relevant work is going on; for them to contribute at the IETF they
need to be equipped with the right skills and understanding of
appropriate processes; for them to have a constructive impact their
contributions need to be considered by a culture that respects
diverse perspectives.
Because responsibilities for addressing different aspects of these
challenges are currently split across various groups and initiatives,
it is difficult for there to be a coherent pull-through path for
experts, from education and outreach and external communications to
meaningful engagement in standards development.
3. Identifying solutions and ways forward
Consideration of ways forward to address these challenges should
importantly also recognise what is already working as well as other
constraints:
* Addressing challenges to engagement of policy expertise in the
standards process should not lead to special treatment or
privilege to be given to the views of one stakeholder group over
another.
* The challenges identified above reflect experiences engaging
across different technology issues, and work to solve them should
focus resolving the structural and process elements identified in
the problem statement, and should not promote or seek to influence
any single policy, technology or standards issue.
* Commonalities exist across the challenges experienced by many
stakeholder groups when engaging on policy issues. Addressing
this issue is wider than participation of any one part of the IETF
community, including of governments at the IETF.
The participation of policy communities is not new, and there are
instructive examples of positive engagement and contribution over the
history of the IETF.
[I-D.draft-cooper-policy-interactions] lists a range of examples
where there have been interactions between IETF work and policy
initiatives. While it is a non-exhaustive and selective list, it
nonetheless evidences a range and diversity of interactions,
including those where outcomes haven't found compromise and have
created significant issues.
Hoffmann & Blachut Expires 13 July 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Policy experts are IETF stakeholders January 2024
On the other hand, there are more positive examples of interaction.
Regulators have participated directly at the IETF. As bodies tasked
with enforcing national regulations relating to competition, privacy,
cybersecurity resilience, online safety or other objectives, they
hold insights into legal and regulatory environments that determine
the practical deployment of standards, which make uniquely valuable
contributions.
More recently, there have been an increasing number of explicit
discussions about public interest and policy topics and how they are
dealt with in the work of the IETF.
At IETF 115 the Internet Society and the UK Government held a side
meeting on policymaker engagement with the IETF, in discussion with
chairs of the IETF, IRTF, and IAB along with other members of the
community. Other side meetings were held at IETF 115 which focused
on wider connections between policy issues and IETF standardisation
[CDT-A19]. Coinciding with IETF 118, the Internet Society and
Internet Architecture Board convened a roundtable with participation
from policymakers as well as IETF participants.
There is also increased discussion in fora such as the United Nations
and the Internet Governance Forum on the intersection of policy,
human rights, and technical standards for the Internet [OHCHR]. In
these contexts, engagement from the IETF community is vital for
informing policy debates on the basis of technical realities, as well
as raising awareness of the important contribution played by the
multistakeholder technical community in upholding an open global
Internet.
There are a range of initiatives within and around the IETF that are
addressing particular aspects of the above points. Some of these are
venues for considering the intersection of policy and technology,
some of these are mechanisms for improving communication, or bringing
together relevant stakeholders. Below is a non-exhaustive list of
groups and initiatives which could help address this problem space in
the long-term:
* IAB: The Internet Architecture Board holds responsibility in a
number of areas relevant to improving engagement with policy
communities [RFC2850]. IAB workshops have in the past, and could
again in the future provide a venue for bringing in expertise of
external communities on issues of long-term importance. IAB
programs could tackle thematic non-technical issues that are
relevant across multiple IETF working groups. IAB statements have
been used to directly respond to policy developments. Overseen by
the IAB are a set of liaison relationships with other SDOs and
fora facilitated by individuals within the community. In carrying
Hoffmann & Blachut Expires 13 July 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Policy experts are IETF stakeholders January 2024
out each of these activities, engagement with policy stakeholders
across the IETF could bring further transparency, capacity, and
expertise to improve outcomes.
* IESG and IAB members: Occasionally, IETF leadership and other
participants engage in policy and technical fora outside of IETF
meetings, such as ICANN, the UN Internet Governance Forum, and
meetings of other SDOs or Regional Internet Registries. This type
of engagement, if made more systematic, could help enable coherent
and non-duplicative policy and technical conversations across a
number of relevant fora, recognising the specific remit, roles and
responsibilities of each.
* IAB-ISOC coordination group: A new coordination group has been set
up to better facilitate liaison between the IAB and ISOC. This is
in the context of a longer standing practice of collaboration
[IAB-ISOC].
* ISOC Policymaker Program: The educational program, co-located at
IETF meetings, serves to introduce government policymakers to
topics such as the infrastructure of the Internet, the development
of technical standards underpinning the Internet, and how these
standards have been implemented. After a brief hiatus, the
Program was reinstated at IETF 116 [ISOC].
* IETF Administration LLC: As stewards of the IETF Community Survey
as well as meeting surveys, the secretariat is in a position to be
able to monitor the experiences of participants coming from
governments, regulators, civil society and other policy-relevant
background. Such data could be instrumental in identifying and
quantifying challenges.
* EODIR Directorate: The Education and Outreach directorate is
chartered to increase the diversity and inclusiveness of the IETF,
and oversees a variety of relevant initiatives [EODIR]. The IETF
Guides program is one notable resource to help any interested
newcomers, which could be relevant and useful in this context.
* RASP RG: The Research and Analysis of the Standards Process
Research Group is chartered to study the internet standards
development process at the IETF, including diversity of
participation and engagement, and interaction with external
communities [RASPRG].
* HRPC RG: The Human Rights and Protocol Considerations research
group in IRTF has served as a venue to consider a range of policy-
relevant topics related to human rights, and has brought valuable
expertise into the IETF, as well as developed guidance for
Hoffmann & Blachut Expires 13 July 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Policy experts are IETF stakeholders January 2024
protocol designers wishing to consider the human rights
implications of their work. Ongoing rechartering discussions
[HRPCCHARTER] could see this group incorporate other areas of
policy and public interest, which would be a beneficial
development towards engaging a wider range of policy experts and
discussion of relevant policy research issues for the IETF
community.
Sharing information to identify further initiatives, and
collaborating to better understand the overlaps and gaps between this
collection of work will be key to addressing the identified problem
statement.
4. Security Considerations
This document has no security considerations.
5. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
6. Informative References
[CDT-A19] "Center for Democracy & Technology and Article 19,
Connecting Internet protocols and standards with policy",
2022, .
[EODIR] "Education and Outreach Directorate", 2024,
.
[HRPC] "Human Rights and Protocol Considerations Research Group",
2024, .
[HRPCCHARTER]
"Human Rights Protocol Considerations", 2023,
.
[I-D.draft-cooper-policy-interactions]
Nottingham, M. and A. Cooper, "IETF Policy Interactions",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-cooper-policy-
interactions-00, 7 July 2023,
.
Hoffmann & Blachut Expires 13 July 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Policy experts are IETF stakeholders January 2024
[I-D.draft-gont-diversity-analysis]
Gont, F. and K. Moore, "Diversity and Inclusiveness in the
IETF", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-gont-
diversity-analysis-01, 27 January 2022,
.
[IAB-ISOC] "IAB-ISOC coordination group", 2023,
.
[ISOC] "Internet Society Policymakers Program", 2024,
.
[OHCHR] "Relationship between human rights and technical standard-
setting processes for new and emerging digital
technologies and the practical application of the Guiding
Principles on Business and Human Rights", 2023,
.
[OPENSTAND]
"OpenStand principles", 2017,
.
[PITG] "Public Interest Technology Group", n.d.,
.
[RASPRG] "Research and Analysis of Standard-Setting Processes
Proposed Research Group", 2024,
.
[RFC2850] Carpenter, B., "Charter of the Internet Architecture Board
(IAB)", RFC 2850, DOI 10.17487/RFC2850, May 2000,
.
[RFC3935] Alvestrand, H., "A Mission Statement for the IETF",
BCP 95, RFC 3935, DOI 10.17487/RFC3935, October 2004,
.
[RFC8890] Nottingham, M., "The Internet is for End Users", RFC 8890,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8890, August 2020,
.
[TAO] "Tao of the IETF", 2024, .
Authors' Addresses
Hoffmann & Blachut Expires 13 July 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Policy experts are IETF stakeholders January 2024
Stacie Hoffmann
UK Dept. for Science, Innovation & Technology
Email: stacie.hoffmann@dsit.gov.uk
Marek Blachut
UK Dept. for Science, Innovation & Technology
Email: marek.blachut2@dsit.gov.uk
Hoffmann & Blachut Expires 13 July 2024 [Page 11]