Subject: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process rather than some

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 07:52:03 -0700

Why cant the IETF and IESG Embrace open elections rather than the
technological version of the Electoral College its tried to put in place
with NOMCOM

Todd

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

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 09:36:38 -0700

Bill - I think the IETF has tried to for years claim it has no members and
that simply isn't true - and I can arrange to have a Judge tell you and the
IETF that if you like.

The fact is that this WG has a membership and is constructing IETF process
that effects all of the other WG's for which they have no say or idea that
this is actually happening. By the way - was this existence of the IPR or
IETF WG disclosed to anyone - is there anything on the Website that talks
about the Governance Models of the IETF being in constant flux?

How about anything anywhere in any document forcing the Participants to
maintain their knowledge of the current contractual terms and conditions for
participating - or in getting the Sponsors' signoff therein as well? No? I
didn't think so.

The facts are simply that when this group changes the contractual terms for
how the IETF works and operates that this effects many others who have
initiatives underway and well - they have to be properly disclosed. Also its
probable that because of the really poorly written boilerplate inclusions
that those changes don't affect efforts underway inside the IETF when the
changes that would impact those efforts occur.

Let me explain - the T's and C's for an initiatives' participation are set
at the time that initiative was started. Once the contract between the IETF
and the Participants is set, its done. Since there is no set of terms and
conditions wherein the previous contractual terms are upgraded or morphed to
meet the newly updated participation T's and C's, those are not enforceable
therein. You understand that this system means that the IETF needs to create
some mapping of each Initiative and its set of rules constraining the
contractual participation of the parties.

The disclosure problem is that there is no "hey its your responsibility to
keep up with all the Rules Regs and T's and C's for this participation."
notice and no process for announcing changes to the Group that they impact
the most - that being the Participants in the IETF. So there is essentially
no formal disclosure to anyone that the IETF's rules and processes and the
contract between it and the participants has been changed.

More inline below.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 9:11 AM
Subject: Re: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process rather than
some

> todd,
> you never did answer my question.  when do you think the IETF
> aquired the attribute of "members"?

It has members when it needs to claim it "voted on something to approve its
deployment" but that the term MEMBERS is not generally accepted by those who
want the system to stay as it is today.

>
> open elections kind of presupose a defined electorate.
> what would be the criteria for some entity to cast a vote in
> such an "election"?

Being an active member of a WG - i.e. someone who's actions within the IETF
were constrained by what this WG does..

The point is that the terms of this, the IETF's 2-party contract, cannot be
changed unilatterally without notification of the relying parties.

Its not legal, and Jorge will confirm this if asked. Its basic Contract law
FWIU.

>
> --bill
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 07:52:03AM -0700, todd glassey wrote:

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 10:24:30 -0700

Bill
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 9:48 AM
Subject: Re: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process rather than
some

> On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 09:36:38AM -0700, todd glassey wrote:
> great...  i'd appreciate that.

Jorge - Are you ready to meet me in the FDC?

> i stand by my claim that i am
> not a member of the IETF.

No actually you are a formal member as maintained here - You see only WG
members contratually bound under NOTEWELL are allowed to comment on
initiatives since there is NO FORMAL PROCESS for the IETF to take external
commentary from non-members in place.

The day-to-day membership fee paid is the transfer of the Ownership of the
IP developed under as per Notewell or the other IP Conveyance Processes.
Sorry - but you are paying dues - just not in cash...

> I have attended IETF meetings, participated
> in discussion and debate, proposed work, developed code ...  all of
> which were done in consultation with like-minded individuals.

You mean with other formal and "dues-paying members" of the IETF.

>
> i've -never- signed up as a member,

Sure you did - the conveyance of the IP through the signing up on the
Mailing List did that. Conveying the IP to the IETF is paying the membership
fee. Further nothing makes you more a member than working here in this WG on
the IETF's Processes.

> paid membership dues

So those meetings you attended were free? no fee's therein? Cool - then
since you or your sponsor's never paid for you to attend these meetings, nor
neither of you paid for the infrasturtcure so that you could participate in
the ongoing lists' genesis ... then I guess your right - (ahahahahaha -
sorry what a crock).

> , nor am
> i aware of a process for becoming a member.

Except that you are formally constrained by a set of terms and conditions
and contracts for this participation, and you are allowed a voice so yes -
you are a member of the IETF whether you like it or not.

> er, does the WG have membership or is it an email list that has
> members?

Arent they one in the same. NoTEWELL and the contractual terms for
participating creat the membership boundries therein.

> are you asserting that an email address on a list
> constitutes membership?

Yes. And if you doubt that, try finding out what putting your email address
on that list contractually constrained you to. You agreed to NOTEWELL and
all of the changing terms that are being created herein didnt you?

Also anyone formally participating under any set of Contractual Agreements
with the IETF becomes a member based on that alone. A member of those
mailing lists and a member of the IETF's Standards Workflow Processes.

Sorry...

> the rabble don't vote.  there is the occasional "hum" (thanks Marshall)
> to have the WG chairs guage consesus.  the IESG and IAB vote... so the
> term members may apply there.  but as to the occasional passerby whom
> may make a random comment or two, i posit that the case is not so clear.
>
> and how, pray tell would there be an emperical, unbiased definition of
> "active member" ...
>
> thanks for your comments.
>
> --bill

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 19:23:22 +0200

todd glassey wrote:

> was this existence of the IPR or IETF WG disclosed to anyone

There is no "IETF WG", this is the general list of the general
area.  And yes, somebody told me where to post IPR WG related
issues when I tried it here.

> is there anything on the Website that talks about the
> Governance Models of the IETF being in constant flux?

Let's see, <http://www.ietf.org> - click "overview" (the first
link not counting the search form) - click "Tao" (eigth link
after IETF + mission + lists + IESG + IAB + ISOC + IANA) -
click "process" (appendix B.3) - read P12...P14, added by Brian
some months ago:  http://www.ietf.org/tao.html#anchor57

Frank

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 12:32:07 -0700

I have  - and whether it was true in the past or not the IETF needs
something more - the Tao of the IETF is more about the members of the ruling
class and little else.

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 10:23 AM
Subject: Constant flux (was: Why cant the IETF embrace an open
ElectionProcess [...])

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 16:11:55 +0000

todd, 

--bill

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 16:48:41 +0000

> that simply isn't true - and I can arrange to have a Judge tell you and the

	great...  i'd appreciate that.  i stand by my claim that i am
	not a member of the IETF.  I have attended IETF meetings, participated
	in discussion and debate, proposed work, developed code ...  all of
	which were done in consultation with like-minded individuals.

	i've -never- signed up as a member, paid membership dues, nor am
	i aware of a process for becoming a member.

	er, does the WG have membership or is it an email list that has
	members?  are you asserting that an email address on a list 
	constitutes membership?  

--bill

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:53:18 -0700

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

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 12:28:53 -0700

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-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process
ratherthansome

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 09:25:56 -0700

Hi -

> From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 12:28 PM
> Subject: Re: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process ratherthansome
>
> Uh - Randy

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.

> process. The IETF does and that is one of the most basic problems here per

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