When: Tuesday, November 5, 2024 13:00-14:30
Where: Wicklow Hall 2B
Chairs: Tommy Pauly, Matthew Bocci
Slides: IAB Open Meeting
RFC 9614: Partitioning as an Architecture for Privacy
draft-iab-bias-workshop-report: IAB Barriers to Internet Access of
Services (BIAS) Workshop Report
E-IMPACT e-impact@ietf.org
Evolvability, Deployability, & Maintainability (EDM) edm@iab.org
Slides: IAB Liaison Procedures Update
Andrew Campling: An observation, to play devil's advocate. You've
phrased some of this like liaisons have no special role in our
processes, but we cannot expect other SDOs to conform to our processes.
I think we need to do some work on how we can adapt to them.
Suresh Krishnan: 100%. We need to make it clear what this means, and I
do get the point about how not getting a response looks. But a response
may or may not be a liaison statement. Scott [Mansfield] is maybe the
best example because he [as ITU-T liaison manager] gets a firehose of
liaison statements.
Mirja Kühlewind: A lot of the confusion is how the engagement with an
organization works because it is different for each organization. We can
only write down a high level set of rules.
Lars-Johan Liman: Do you have a timeline for getting these documents
out?
Suresh Krishnan: Months. Some of these things, we don't have a good idea
of where the community stands. But from our side, we want to get this
done quickly.
Jim Reid: One of the concerns I have is that there is a large number of
inbound liaison statements that have no response from the IETF at all,
and I wonder if there's any plan to try and deal with that in a more
constructive way, because it looks really bad when the IETF is not
engaging with other SDOs.
Suresh Krishnan: I see your point, Jim, but one of the things is that
it's not always clear that a response is even needed, right? But one of
the things we've been talking about is having a way to mechanically
respond to all of the liaison statements so there is confirmation that
they have been received. And then if there is something that is
indicated that a response is required, then we'll send a ping.
Tommy Pauly: We're running out of time for this topic, but we can
continue this discussion tomorrow at lunchtime in the liaison
coordinator office hours.
Slides: ITU-T Liaison
Suresh Krishnan: Thank you for everything you're doing, Scott. You had
the YANG scale thing. The IAB is organizing a workshop on NEMOPS, and we
would love to see a position paper from those folks.
Scott Mansfield: I have what I need to build that presentation.
Jim Reid: Everyone should thank you for the hard work you've been doing
on this.
[Applause]
Andrew Campling: This was really informative. A question for the IAB to
think about: I think our model makes it uniquely difficult for other
SDOs to come to us because they must come as individuals. If the ITU
wants to bring something to us, they can't because we don't work that
way.
Arnaud Taddei: I am the SG17 chair. I would insist on one point, that
liaisons are a matter of people. I appreciate that Roman [Danyliw, IETF
Chair] accepted my invitation to the Global Standards Symposium (GSS).
For people in the IETF, there is a perception of the ITU, but the ITU is
changing a lot. There are a lot of good things happening, and there are
plenty of recommendations that are good, and so I think there is a need
to change the perception.
Scott Mansfield: I appreciate the work of Arnaud and the other chairs
here.
Michael Rosa: I am one of the other vice chairs for SG17 and am happy to
help where I can on coordinating these liaisons.
Slides: NEMOPS Workshop Update
Slides: AI Control Workshop Summary
Draft workshop report: draft-iab-ai-control-report
Mailing list: ai-control@ietf.org
Side meeting to discuss potential IETF work: Thursday 11:30-13:00,
Wicklow 2A
Brian Trammell: Thanks for doing this. The IAB has gone back and forth
on the open/closed thing for workshops. I think this was a good way to
have this conversation. Maybe don't forget how to make the
closed-to-open things happen. I really encourage you to keep notes and
figure out how well this works and institutionalize it if it works well.
Mark Nottingham: This is absolutely my intention; this isn't the only
policy issue on the planet right now.
Arnaud Taddei: AI is like a wave of mirrors that is flashing on everyone
at the moment. I can already see clashes. We already have a problem of
coordination. It would be helpful if you could send a liaison on this to
the ITU-T. And make sure the ITU member states have no duplication of
effort.
Suresh Krishnan: What do you think the timing should be? We are talking
about chartering a WG, before or after?
Arnaud Taddei: Do it when you are comfortable, but keep in mind that the
SGs start in January.
Mark Nottingham: The timing is top of mind for me as well. It is an
interesting coordination problem. Industry can wait for the UN-level
coordination to happen, but there are already regulatory requirements.
Scott Mansfield: Because you mentioned governance and policy, there is a
paper by Milton Mueller, Rethinking AI Governance. It really does
reframe this problem in a different way. I would look to people like
that who are doing work here.
Slides: ISOC Talk on GDC
Carolina Caeiro: I had a quick question. In the slide about endorsing
the GDC, I've heard that there is risk that if you don't endorse, you
won't be involved in the negotiations going forward. Have you heard the
same?
Olaf Kolkman: I don't know if that is a fact, but it is definitely
something that goes into the decision if it is a fact.
Lars-Johan Liman: I share a lot of your concerns. What do you think the
consequences will be if you endorse or don't endorse? What are we
looking forward to here?
Olaf Kolkman: If you don't endorse, will you be shut out of the process?
That is a concern. I think we might have a different answer to that than
other organizations. And if you don't endorse, will people remember
that? Do you make a strong statement when you don't endorse? These are
all questions we are grappling with.
Marc Blanchet: What do you expect from the IETF community about this?
Olaf Kolkman: I think this community needs to make up its mind about the
need to engage in the process. We don't really have strong advice about
it. It's a bit about being inside the tent. I think what is in the
compact now protects our way of working, and I'm very happy about that.
Perhaps it's more important to concentrate on the WSIS+20 review that is
coming our way.
Sally Wentworth: To build on what Olaf said on what might come of
endorsing, both this and the WSIS+20 will be setting the agenda across
the UN systems. For an organization like the Internet Society that is
active, I could imagine an endorsement could be seen as, you will be
participating in future work.
Peter Koch: During all of these consultations, the coordination of the
technical community was a specific concern. The question of the
endorsement, it is probably good to have to have coherent if not unified
voices. Can you share any insight on that?
Olaf Kolkman: We are talking. The IETF, IAB, ICANN, ISOC, and RIR
leadership will be meeting next week in Istanbul. We don't have to sing
in unison, but we do have to sing in harmony. If we give different
messages about endorsement, then we really need to understand why. It is
an ongoing conversation with the stakeholders in this community.
Tommy Pauly: Thank you to everyone who came and participated.