I think the point has been missed here that there have been significant changes in the way that the IETF works.
Six years ago the norm was for IESG and IAB members to be reappointed as a matter of course. Most NOMCONs changed one or two positions at most. Working Group chairs were with few exceptions appointed by the AD without the WG members even being aware that there is a vacancy. These practices have mostly changed and most people seem to agree that the changes are for the better. There are still problems to be addressed. In particular the IETF has yet to face the fact that major infrastructure changes such as IPv6 and DNSSEC require much closer attention to marketting and deployment than is currently the case. Also we still have the bizare situation where the IETF is a 'standards body' that almost never completes standards. There is an institutional failure to commit to production. The point of the first set of reforms was to enable the second set. We are all engineers and as engineers our preference for a management regime is likely to be an environment where there are no fixed deadlines, no accountability and endless scope for tinkering with details of the design. The IETF management procedures should hardly be a surprise therefore. The point of NOMCON was to maintain power in the hands of the establishment and to ensure that there was no effective means of accountability. The problem here is that we are now running an infrastructure that a billion people and about half of international commerce depends upon. The security of that infrastructure is unacceptable and throwing cryptography at it is not going to be the answer. The current IETF management procedures may meet the needs of some but they do not meet the needs of those people who have a different scope and a different vision of what the Internet should be, a vision and a scope that match what the Internet is today and will be in the future. > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Newton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 10:03 AM > To: todd glassey > Cc: Bill Fenner; ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: NOMCOM term limits... Re: Now there seems to be > lack of communicaiton here... > > todd glassey wrote: > > And since the purpose is to keep the IETF honest, I want > the same term > > limits for any and all IETF positions, including the TRUST as well. > > Including working group chairs and secretaries and > directorate members? > > -andy > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
