FC: IETF chair Fred Baker says wiretap debate "definitely not over"

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

IETF chairman Fred Baker, who works for Cisco, said in private email that
the debate over wiretapping inside IETF is not over. That email ended up
being forwarded to the cyberia mailing list, and it sparked the inevitable
debate: Didn't IETF resolve this with the overwhelming vote Wednesday evening?

Nope.

Baker complained about a private note being forwarded without his
permission, so I shall not include it here. But it is an important public
issue that affects the Internet community and I will quote one line:

  "I cannot say that the sense of the room is anywhere near the
  final answer, although it is surely indicative of the direction
  we are likely to go."

Baker said that IETF is not ready to make a formal announcement, but will
eventually do it through the request for comment process. He said the
executive committees (IAB, IESG) need to discuss this privately and consult
with lawyers.

Baker then said in a followup message sent to an IETF discussion group,
(http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/raven):

   "This isn't over. I wish it was, oh do I wish it was, but it is
   definitely not over."

-Declan



> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 23:19:14 -0800
> To: Declan McCullagh <declan () wired com>
> From: Fred Baker <fred () cisco com>
> Subject: Re: [Raven] IETF Consensus? Not according to Fred Baker
> Cc: raven () ietf org, jriter () POST COM
>
> I love it when private mail is forwarded without permission to volatile
> lists. It makes me feel like my privacy is so well respected, in this case
> by some who make such long and pious statements about respecting and
> preserving privacy at all costs. It just so improves my day.
>
> That email originated with me, and it reflects my understanding and opinion
> of the result Wednesday night. There were a lot of people, more than half
> the people present, who said we should not explicitly support wire-tap
> features, but there was a large crowd who felt otherwise or felt that the
> discussion and question were in one way or another malformed, and "well
> more than half" is not a consensus. To declare in a headline that the IETF
> took a vote and *unanimously* decided to not do this is inaccurate
> reporting - it doesn't even take into account the IETF's tradition of
> extension by email lists. Even to report a consensus doesn't take into
> account the IETF's traditions concerning consensus.
>
> This isn't over. I wish it was, oh do I wish it was, but it is definitely
> not over. 
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Fred Baker     | 519 Lado Drive
> IETF Chair     | Santa Barbara California 93111
> www.ietf.org   | Desk:   +1-408-526-4257
>               | Mobile: +1-805-886-3873
>               | FAX:    +1-413-473-2403



> Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 08:05:03 -0500
> To: Fred Baker <fred () cisco com>
> From: John Young <jya () pipeline com>
> Subject: Re: [Raven] IETF Consensus? Not according to Fred Baker
> Cc: raven () ietf org, jriter () POST COM, declan () wired com
>
> Fred,
>
> I appreciate your being pissed at private mail exposure, as well as
> your follow-up message. The raven list has been a fine service of IETF
> for those of us who benefit from the group's work but don't know much
> about its inner workings.
>
> It would be exemplary for IETF to keep the wiretap debate as public as
> possible, especially as the dispute gets more intense, which appears to
> be in the offing according to your messages.
>
> You know that there's been a long-standing effort to make the cellular
> standards deliberations more public in order to air disputes on weak
> encryption in the US and abroad. And that is still being debated behind
> closed doors at the cost of  public credibility of those standards groups.
>
> Public debate puts a lot of heat on those who seek agreement, whether in
> Congress or in private organizations. The few persons who can show
> courageous leadership in open discourse, and resist temptation and
> pressure to arrange covert deals, well, those are the kind of individuals
> we all dream of, and are promised repeatedly, but too seldom find in 
> the right place at the right time doing the right thing.
>
> Ever think of running for national office? We're told that requires training
> in talking to watermelons with intense focus out two sides of the mouth,
> hand out at the back for special support.



> Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 08:41:52 -0500
> To: raven () ietf org
> From: Ed Stone <estone () synernet com>
> Subject: Re: [Raven] IETF Consensus? Not according to Fred Baker
> Sender: raven-admin () ietf org
>
> > That email originated with me, and it reflects my understanding and opinion
> > of the result Wednesday night. There were a lot of people, more than half
> > the people present, who said we should not explicitly support wire-tap
> > features, but there was a large crowd who felt otherwise or felt that the
> > discussion and question were in one way or another malformed, and "well
> > more than half" is not a consensus. To declare in a headline that the IETF
> > took a vote and *unanimously* decided to not do this is inaccurate
> > reporting - it doesn't even take into account the IETF's tradition of
> > extension by email lists. Even to report a consensus doesn't take into
> > account the IETF's traditions concerning consensus.
> >
> > This isn't over. I wish it was, oh do I wish it was, but it is definitely
> > not over.
>
> So when does the usual closed-door, dark-of-night, unscheduled, 
> industry-led, tax-code-incentivized, FBI-scare-tactics, 
> congressional-debateless arm twisting begin?



> Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 16:54:03 -0500 (EST)
> From: Josephine Riter <jriter () post com>
> To: John Young <jya () pipeline com>, Fred Baker <fred () cisco com>
> Subject: RE: Re: [Raven] IETF Consensus? Not according to Fred Baker
> Cc: raven () ietf org, declan () wired com
>
> I confess - I forwarded Fred's message to the listserv cyberia-l. But I must
> say that the version I received came with the subject line "please forward."
> In addition, it was my understanding that the leadership of IETF was going
> to release exactly this type of e-mail - summarizing the vote and clarifying
> that a consensus was not achieve.
>
> I apologize if this was not a public e-mail meant for forwarding. It was not
> my intention to violate fred's privacy.
>
> -J Riter
> Big Brother is not Listening
> We're not that interesting




--------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology
To subscribe: send a message to majordomo () vorlon mit edu with this text:
subscribe politech
More information is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------