Subject: RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process ratherthansome

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 17:09:10 -0700

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-masked]] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 2:53 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> 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
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 20:39:33 -0400

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.

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 09:57:38 +0100

> 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-masked] - xmpp:[email-masked]
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade

---

From: "Yaakov Stein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 12:38:26 +0200

I am somewhat surprised that no-one has actually answered the question
why DO we use a noncom rather than open elections?
 
I think that one answer to that question is quite simple.
In open elections where all meeting participants
or all active WG participants take part,
there would be a strong bias towards large corporations
who can afford to devote a large number of representatives.
 
In fact, we could rapidly find the IETF effectively kidnapped
by one or two companies, stifling creativity and serving to 
further their narrow economic interests, rather than those
of the developer and user communities at large. 
This would undermine the whole purpose of the IETF.
 
The noncom has built-in restrictions that work to keep the
IETF diverse and responsive to a wide community.
 
Isn't it easier to answer the question asked rather than 
indulging in the content-free discussion we have just witnessed?
 
Y(J)S

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 12:11:31 +0200

Phill,
> 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

---

From: Jefsey_Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 15:30:57 +0200

>who can afford to devote a large number of representatives.

I am not sure that bias would be that bad. Because this bias does 
exist on the market. I feel that this is what is exactly happening 
right now in an uncorrect way (cf. IAB RFC 3869). Let suppose the 
IESG would be biased by large corporations (is it not: who else can 
pay people to volunteer to such job), their interests would be more 
clearly exposed than through the current system + market impact. May 
be could we save one or to years on the TTM.

>In fact, we could rapidly find the IETF effectively kidnapped by one 
>or two companies, stifling creativity and serving to further their 
>narrow economic interests, rather than those of the developer and 
>user communities at large. This would undermine the whole purpose of the IETF.

I am afraid that at least in some cases (I met two while being active 
in three WGs) this is what is happening. You notice it less, but WG 
can be kidnapped. IMHO this is more insidious because what the 
corporations then want is not development but the confirmation of 
their positions and commercial leadership through RFCs. Again, I 
strongly advise we reread carefully IAB's RFC 3869.

IMHO no system can be perfect. All the more if one tries to make it 
supporting everything, development, engineering, documentation, 
testing. But I would be very interested in a parallel effort for 
structural issues where WGs would be protected from being hijacked by 
having the IETF deliverables' users (other SSDOs, industry, Govs, 
civil society) the moderator.

>The noncom has built-in restrictions that work to keep the IETF 
>diverse and responsive to a wide community.

Yes. But there could be other solutions providing the same 
protection, but more adapted to a part of the IETF growth and current 
state of the technical governance.

>Isn't it easier to answer the question asked rather than indulging 
>in the content-free discussion we have just witnessed?

Yes. IMHO the real problem is well described in RFC 3935. The 
technology the IETF documents is built along the IETF core values. I 
feel these values and technical interests have somewhat diversified. 
We should therefore consider not to change what works, but to explore 
new _additional_ avenues. The technology, the Internet, the world, 
the IETF is no more in 1986.

jfc

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 08:28:38 -0700

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 5:39 PM
Subject: RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process
ratherthansome

> Firstly, the rough consensus, to the degree it is observable, favors

By those allowed to participate and vote - not by the breadth of those
participating in the IETF itself.

> unfortunate but inevitable effect selecting some criteria.

Which means that the NOMCOM selection process excludes people it represents.

>  To

I would suggest that you review fiduciary responsibility which is what you
are talking about.

> 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.