Re: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process ratherthansome
Hi - From: todd glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Randy Presuhn [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 12:28 PM Subject: Re: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process ratherthansome Uh - Randy that's because they all have formally constrained memberships and have an ongoing relation between them and their participants. But WHICH organization's membership model do you want to emulate? ITU? ISO? IEEE? DMTF? Unicode? W3C? There are very substantial differences between these, and not just in terms of membership, but more importantly in how chairs and other positions of (relative) power are filled, which is the real focus of this discussion. Stop wasting time with arm-waving and get to a specific model you would like us to examine. They also do not have people in those entities creating documents which allege power of attorney for IP that is submitted as part of the standards process. The IETF does and that is one of the most basic problems here per se IMHO. Again, WHICH organization's IPR model would you have us emulate? Legalistic theorizing is no substitute for a specific proposal. ... If you want more detail I can spin it for you all day long. ... There's been quite enough spin, thank you. It's time to either make a specific proposal or to stop wasting electrons. Randy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process ratherthansome
On Fri Sep 15 01:09:10 2006, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: All that is needed to hold an election is to define the franchise. The franchise in this case would be defined in the same manner as the NOMCON is at present. I hope not. I should argue very strongly against taking away the voting rights that I neither have nor want. Dave. -- Dave Cridland - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/ - http://dave.cridland.net/ Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process ratherthansome
Phill, There is no need to define the concept of membership. The term 'membership' is essentially a legal term and the courts will define it according to their convenience. One can be a member without having a vote and can have a vote without being a member. Under English Common Law saying that a thing is so does not make it so. If a an agreement that meets the legal definition of a partnership agreement explicitly states that it is not a partnership agreement that does not make it any less a partnership nor does it extinguish the liabilities, ct. of such. All that is needed to hold an election is to define the franchise. The franchise in this case would be defined in the same manner as the NOMCON is at present. I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Net. Can we stop arguing about what could be and concern ourselves with what we want? If we are happy with what we have then let's simply stop arguing. Eliot ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process ratherthansome
From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] At 09:28 PM 9/14/2006, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I raised several specific objections to your view, which you have chosen not to respond to here. The comment you quote was not intended as an argument you should (or as you observe could) respond to, but rather as an indication taht I would not be surprised if there were additional issues beyond the ones I raised that would also need to be discussed. If you make arguments that are lazy and demonstrate disrespect as yours did then don't be surprised if people respond to the arguments that you are (or at least should be) ashamed of. Your other argument was that there should be no change because there was no consensus, an entirely circular argument that implies nobody can ever argue for change. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process ratherthansome
Uh - Randy that's because they all have formally constrained memberships and have an ongoing relation between them and their participants. They also do not have people in those entities creating documents which allege power of attorney for IP that is submitted as part of the standards process. The IETF does and that is one of the most basic problems here per se IMHO. The IETF needs to formally admit is has a membership and that those members in some cases can speak for themselves and in others cannot. It also needs to stop making decisions for those participants and come up with better oversight models for its peer-based processes. If you want more detail I can spin it for you all day long. Todd Glassey - Original Message - From: Randy Presuhn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ietf@ietf.org Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 11:53 AM Subject: Re: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process ratherthansome Hi - Strangely absent from this discussion are any examples of standards bodies that satisfy the critics' criteria. Perhaps some examples of standards organizations successfully using processes meeting those criteria would be helpful to focus this dicussion. Randy ___ 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
Re: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process ratherthansome
- Original Message - From: Joel M. Halpern [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ietf@ietf.org Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 5:39 PM Subject: RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process ratherthansome Clearly, we could choose to do that. There are several drawbacks. Firstly, the rough consensus, to the degree it is observable, favors the current approach. By those allowed to participate and vote - not by the breadth of those participating in the IETF itself. Secondly, there is a significant and important portion of the IETF which does not meet the NOMCOM criteria. This was consider an unfortunate but inevitable effect selecting some criteria. Which means that the NOMCOM selection process excludes people it represents. To counterbalance this, the NOMCOM itself is supposed to consider the needs of the entire IETF, not just that portion which attends meetings. I would suggest that you review fiduciary responsibility which is what you are talking about. Thirdly, voting itself has many drawbacks, and as Fred Baker observed recently, is liable to focus on popularity rather than on effectiveness for the job. Which means that the Sponsor's and others who have bet the bank on their retaining control of the IESG could lose that control. Too bad. I doubt that in the brief consideration based on your note I have found all of the problems. If there were a serious problem with the NOMCOM process, it would probably be sensible to evaluate whether the drawbacks of an election mode would be worth whatever problems it solved. However, without a clear statement of problems with the NOMCOM process, I can not see any point in trying to evaluate an alternative. Elections are not in and of themselves good. For civil governments, they seem to be the best choice we can find. Yours, Joel M. Halpern At 08:09 PM 9/14/2006, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: There is no need to define the concept of membership. The term 'membership' is essentially a legal term and the courts will define it according to their convenience. One can be a member without having a vote and can have a vote without being a member. Under English Common Law saying that a thing is so does not make it so. If a an agreement that meets the legal definition of a partnership agreement explicitly states that it is not a partnership agreement that does not make it any less a partnership nor does it extinguish the liabilities, ct. of such. All that is needed to hold an election is to define the franchise. The franchise in this case would be defined in the same manner as the NOMCON is at present. ___ 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
RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process ratherthansome
There is no need to define the concept of membership. The term 'membership' is essentially a legal term and the courts will define it according to their convenience. One can be a member without having a vote and can have a vote without being a member. Under English Common Law saying that a thing is so does not make it so. If a an agreement that meets the legal definition of a partnership agreement explicitly states that it is not a partnership agreement that does not make it any less a partnership nor does it extinguish the liabilities, ct. of such. All that is needed to hold an election is to define the franchise. The franchise in this case would be defined in the same manner as the NOMCON is at present. -Original Message- From: Randy Presuhn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 2:53 PM To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process ratherthansome Hi - Strangely absent from this discussion are any examples of standards bodies that satisfy the critics' criteria. Perhaps some examples of standards organizations successfully using processes meeting those criteria would be helpful to focus this dicussion. Randy ___ 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
RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process ratherthansome
Clearly, we could choose to do that. There are several drawbacks. Firstly, the rough consensus, to the degree it is observable, favors the current approach. Secondly, there is a significant and important portion of the IETF which does not meet the NOMCOM criteria. This was consider an unfortunate but inevitable effect selecting some criteria. To counterbalance this, the NOMCOM itself is supposed to consider the needs of the entire IETF, not just that portion which attends meetings. Thirdly, voting itself has many drawbacks, and as Fred Baker observed recently, is liable to focus on popularity rather than on effectiveness for the job. I doubt that in the brief consideration based on your note I have found all of the problems. If there were a serious problem with the NOMCOM process, it would probably be sensible to evaluate whether the drawbacks of an election mode would be worth whatever problems it solved. However, without a clear statement of problems with the NOMCOM process, I can not see any point in trying to evaluate an alternative. Elections are not in and of themselves good. For civil governments, they seem to be the best choice we can find. Yours, Joel M. Halpern At 08:09 PM 9/14/2006, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: There is no need to define the concept of membership. The term 'membership' is essentially a legal term and the courts will define it according to their convenience. One can be a member without having a vote and can have a vote without being a member. Under English Common Law saying that a thing is so does not make it so. If a an agreement that meets the legal definition of a partnership agreement explicitly states that it is not a partnership agreement that does not make it any less a partnership nor does it extinguish the liabilities, ct. of such. All that is needed to hold an election is to define the franchise. The franchise in this case would be defined in the same manner as the NOMCON is at present. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process ratherthansome
From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I doubt that in the brief consideration based on your note I have found all of the problems. Obviously. As Winston Churchill once remarked, Democracy is the worst possible system of government, except for all the others. The problem with the current scheme is precisely when people use the power of incumbency to advance arguments like the one you just gave. In particular a certain individual made essentially the same argument to trump a technical discussion and as a result DNSSEC was put back by five years. Either argue your case or don't. Asserting that you believe you could find an argument but are too lazy to do so is hardly persuasive. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process ratherthansome
At 09:28 PM 9/14/2006, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I doubt that in the brief consideration based on your note I have found all of the problems. Obviously. As Winston Churchill once remarked, Democracy is the worst possible system of government, except for all the others. The problem with the current scheme is precisely when people use the power of incumbency to advance arguments like the one you just gave. In particular a certain individual made essentially the same argument to trump a technical discussion and as a result DNSSEC was put back by five years. Either argue your case or don't. Asserting that you believe you could find an argument but are too lazy to do so is hardly persuasive. I raised several specific objections to your view, which you have chosen not to respond to here. The comment you quote was not intended as an argument you should (or as you observe could) respond to, but rather as an indication taht I would not be surprised if there were additional issues beyond the ones I raised that would also need to be discussed. Yours, Joel M. Halpern ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process ratherthansome
From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] The problem with the current scheme is precisely when people use the power of incumbency to advance arguments like the one you just gave. After studying this statement for a while, I am unable to find any semantic content in it; frankly, all I can find is vaporous rhetoric. The more I try and understand what it's trying to say, the less sense I can make of it. How the power of incumbency has any ability to influence the value of a particular line of reasoning is utterly beyond me. An incumbent can say something, but that doesn't mean anyone has to put much weight on it, any more than we have to put any weight on things you say. Let me make a few points that come to mind when I consider what you might possibly have been trying to say. First, the existing I* management personnel have minimal influence on the personnel decisions made by the NomComm (other than liaisons, who don't get a vote in the decisions). So is there any way in which the incumbents are using the power of incumbency to decide who gets appointed? Furthermore, the NomComm is a randomly selected subset of the people who would get to vote (in the most recent proposal), if we in fact had voting. It's not like it's a whole different group of people, or a carefully selected biased set, or something. So what makes you think the personnel decisions made by the larger group would be significantly different from those made by the subset? If randomly selected subsets were not reasonably representative, the whole concept of statistical polling would not work. Either argue your case or don't. Asserting that you believe you could find an argument but are too lazy to do so is hardly persuasive. The irony level in this statement would stun a blue whale, let alone an ox. (And my apologies to everyone on the list for wasting bandwidth, and space in all your in-boxes, on this, but sometimes things are said which need a reply, even though the reply is likely an utter waste of time.) Noel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
