Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Irregularities with the GEOPRIV Meeting at IETF 68

From: John Schnizlein <[email-masked]> (by way of "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>)
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:23:08 -0500

It is worth recalling that a subset of the AD's and GeoPriv Chairs
have pursued surprise changes to the advertised agenda before.

The agenda of the GeoPriv WG meeting at IETF 57 was distinctly
different from the one advertised, with the inclusion of a
presentation by Jon Peterson on draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lci-option at
the beginning. During Agenda Bash, I objected to the insertion of
this presentation without the knowledge of the authors, and was told
that the author not present had been told. Jon's presentation was a
well-organized ambush with slides in which he raised a wide variety
of "concerns" about the draft that he had not (for that matter never
did) post to the WG mailing list. On the day after the draft minutes
of the meeting were posted on September 23, 2003, I posted
clarification on the mailing list of the whitewash of the objection
to the inclusion of that ambush presentation.

With modifications, that draft became RFC 3825, and represents the
then-consensus position that hosts should obtain and control
information about their geographic locations. The alternative that
may have been the hidden agenda at IETF 68 instead advocates that
control of a host's geographic location reside with the network
operator, and delivered through location servers. The only
"requirement" for these location servers appears to be the business
interests of their operators, following the model of existing
cellular telephone networks. Advocates for this server-centric model
have pushed a protocol called HELD, which may have been represented
as an IETF product (based on individual-submission drafts) to
operator groups. Some of the same advocates have also undertaken
attacks on RFC 3825 with arcane arguments about claimed differences
between "uncertainty" and the resolution of a (latitude, longitude)
location. After one of the chairs requested a draft to clarify the
meaning of resolution in RFC 3825, and the comments from IETF 67 were
incorporated into a WG-approved draft, the chairs have arbitrarily
labeled this draft: draft-ietf-geopriv-binary-lci-00 as "Awaiting
revision by author team".

There is reason to suspect that the maneuvers in Prague are part of
an agenda to move control over a host's location from the host to the
network operator in order to create a business of providing it.
There is a pattern with implications on the outcome of the WG, not
just procedural lapse.

John

On Apr 18, 2007, at 8:59 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:

>Howdy,
>         I'd like to make some comments on the issues discussed below.  Before
>diving into the details, I'd like to make two meta-comments.  First,
>I believe that the chairs' messages noted that they had received
>private messages
>of concern, and that their e-mail was expressed as a response to
>those messages.
>As chairs, it is their responsibility to take the community's
>concerns seriously
>and to respond to them.  My reading of their response is that they
>believe
>that the IETF 68 meeting of GEOPRIV was sufficiently unusual that
>it requires us
>to be very careful to follow our standard procedures in following
>up the meeting,
>so that the overall process is obviously fair and is as transparent
>as possible.
>         This serves the interests of those who were at the GEOPRIV meeting at
>IETF 68, as well as those who participate but could not physically
>attend
>the meeting.  Reading Cullen's response, it looks like he saw this
>as the
>chairs' impression and reaction as individuals; maybe that is part
>of it,
>but I believe is important to see this in terms of the view of the
>participant
>community (of which the Chairs certainly form part).  I also
>believe that their
>suggested response is basically "do business as usual, and make
>sure that's obvious",
>which I believe is non-controversial as a way forward.
>         Secondly, I believe that this response has picked up some style
>elements of the original chairs' message and exaggerated them,
>falling into quasi-legal language that hurts us as a group of folks
>trying to
>get this done.  As I read the original message, the core is that
>there were three
>unusual aspects of the GEOPRIV meeting at IETF 68:  the schedule
>changed, which
>had some unfortunate consequences; the meeting agenda changed more
>than usual;
>and the way the group made progress was at the far end of our
>process.  Any
>one of those, alone, might be enough to cause us to want to be
>careful of the
>follow-up.  All of them together are definitely enough.  Rather
>than push against
>how any one of these points got to be, let's see if we can agree on
>the way
>forward.  I think, honestly, we already do, and bogging down in how we
>got here is not that useful.  As you'll see below I see some
>mistakes I made
>here, and I suspect others do as well.  Let's learn from them and
>move on.
>
>At 1:23 PM -0700 4/18/07, Cullen Jennings wrote:
>>In the email below, the GEOPRIV chairs express serious concerns
>>about the process surrounding the GEOPRIV meeting at IETF 68 in
>>Prague. In particular, they allege:
>>
>>- That improper meetings occurred between the ADs and the working
>>group participants and that this "potentially harmed the integrity
>>and transparency of GEOPRIV and the IETF"
>>
>>- That there was "the appearance that there may have been an
>>attempt to manipulate IETF process to hold and predetermine the
>>outcome of consensus calls" on the part of the Area Directors.
>>
>>In the first place, the Area Directors take these concerns, and
>>grave allegations, very seriously. Area Directors who manipulate
>>schedules and agendas in order to predetermine the outcome of
>>consensus calls should, in our opinion, be summarily recalled, and
>>if the GEOPRIV working group chairs believe this transpired in
>>IETF 68, we urge them to pursue such a recourse.
>
>I urge them not to.  Let's try to work this out without creaking
>into effect a never-used
>aspect of our process.  Pushing it to that extreme looks contrary
>to our usual effort
>to achieve consensus; let's continue talking to each other
>instead.  If either the
>Area Directors or chairs is no longer willing to talk about the
>problems and resolve
>them, I think we're in a sorry state.  If we've gotten there, let's
>try and back away.
>
>
>>While we speak to the particulars in detail below, in short we
>>believe that our efforts before, during and after the GEOPRIV
>>meeting at IETF 68 were limited to encouraging a set of
>>participants to arrive at a consensus which was long overdue, and
>>did not extend to steering said consensus in any particular
>>direction. In this regard we do not believe we overstepped our
>>bounds, either in the letter or the spirit of the process.
>>
>>As indicated in my message of March 25, we agree with the GEOPRIV
>>chairs that the hums taken in prague need to be confirmed on the
>>mailing list. As we all know, the contents of a room in Prague are
>>not equivalent to an IETF working group; only formal decisions of
>>this mailing list are definitive for the working group. Too often
>>working group minutes are published and completely ignored, which
>>only leads to further discord down the road when participants
>>resist that to which they are presumed to have assented. This is
>>particularly important in this case because opinion in the room
>>was so closely divided. So in the interests of making progress,
>>please do review the results of Prague carefully!
>>
>>To the particular concerns of the GEOPRIV chairs:
>>
>><> Agenda: The Area Directors did meet privately with members of
>>the GEOPRIV working group prior to the meeting at IETF 68. Indeed,
>>we met with as many stakeholders as possible, specifically to
>>ascertain how the group could move forward on a set of contentious
>>issues which had been unresolved for some time.
>
>As a participant, I volunteered to meet with James Winterbottom to
>discuss some
>of his concerns and to understand better how some aspects of his
>proposal helped
>advance the work of the group.  Looking back over the email
>exchange leading
>up to that, I realize now that it would have better for me to add my
>willingness to talk to other folks with other points of view, as
>some other
>folks might have misconstrued my message as singling James out.
>Because I was serving on the IESG at the time, some folks might
>have misunderstood which hat I was wearing when I made that offer.
>I apologize for that, especially if
>that contributed to  any of the feeling that one position was being
>favored.
>
>I think the same could be said for Jon and Cullen.  Once they
>started meeting
>privately with folks from GEOPRIV to discuss how to move forward, a
>note
>to the group that they were looking for input on that would have been
>useful.  In particular, it might have identified folks that Jon and
>Cullen
>didn't immediately recognize as "stakeholders", and it would have
>given
>those not at the physical meeting time to send email or otherwise
>contact
>them as ADs.  I don't think that would have had a huge impact on the
>outcome, honestly, but it would have increased the transparency of
>what
>was going on.  That goes to the point the chairs have made.  In the
>middle
>of an IETF, jet-lagged and hyper-busy, I think we have to agree
>that this is an easy
>mistake to make.  But I hope we can agree that an open call for
>input would
>be a good thing to be sure of in the future.
>
>>In the course of these meetings we solicited input on how progress
>>could be made at the meeting, and strongly encouraged working
>>group members to find a path to consensus. We came to believe that
>>focusing on core issues that were impeding progress, such as the
>>longstanding disagreement on an HTTP-based Layer 7 Location
>>Configuration Protocol (henceforth L7LCP) rather than ancillary
>>issues like location signing, would be the best use of working
>>group facetime.
>
>I'm not sure everyone sees location signing as ancillary; it's just
>momentarily
>less contentious.
>
>The reality is that the group was deadlocked on whether to do an L7LCP
>and remained so for a long time after the idea was first
>introduced.  This
>was later exacerbated by a choice in which document to use as a
>baseline if
>the working group did take it up.  This latter choice was bitterly
>contentious
>and had been so for some time.  I agree with the choice to make
>resolving
>it a priority, but I also see the problem raised by the chairs:  it
>was not the
>focus of the original agenda and some, but not all, of the folks
>going into the
>meeting knew that there would be a proposal to change the focus of
>the meeting.
>Since that level of agenda bash is unusual, you can see that as
>adding to a
>concern about transparency.
>
>There is always concern that decisions made in situations like that
>may be
>influenced by partisans packing the room with folks who are not
>typical
>participants.  Whether that happened in this case or not, or on
>which side,
>is not really that important.  The reality is that our processes
>have a way of
>handling that, by making sure that the mailing list is always used
>as the final
>decision-making venue for the working group.  For less contentious
>issues, that can
>be a simple "Anyone disagree with the consensus of the room?".  I
>believe
>that for contentious issues, more care may be required to state
>carefully
>what the proposal is and how consensus will be determined.
>
>I don't think the chairs' proposal for how to move forward requires
>more than
>that, and I don't see any issues inside the WG with that as part of
>the plan
>on how to move forward.
>
>
>>While it is certainly true that the Area Directors knew they
>>wanted to use the agenda time in GEOPRIV to make progress on core
>>issues, if necessary at the expense of existing agenda items,
>>there was no concrete agenda to that effect privately circulated
>>prior to the meeting, verbally or in writing, to our knowledge. In
>>fact, the agenda was bashed at the start of the GEOPRIV meeting by
>>a participant, albeit one whose counsel on making progress the
>>Area Directors had sought prior to the meeting. Critically, that
>>agenda bash was vetted by the room, as any other agenda bash would
>>be - this was not a change made by fiat of the Area Directors. We
>>strongly believe that there was a will in the room to prioritize
>>and resolve the issues which were bashed onto the agenda. We
>>furthermore took specific hums about the preparedness of the group
>>to make decisions about these issues, which under the
>>circumstances were required to proceed.
>>
>><> Scheduling: There certainly were irregularities with the
>>scheduling of the GEOPRIV meeting at IETF 68. That much said,
>>scheduling the meeting track for the RAI Area is infamous, and
>>last minute changes in timeslot are hardly unheard of (we had a
>>similar one at the previous IETF). In this instance, the
>>scheduling problem was ultimately caused by the unavailability of
>>working group chairs. Two of the three GEOPRIV chairs, and one of
>>the two SPEERMINT chairs, were unable to attend IETF 68 at all. It
>>transpired that the SPEERMINT chair who could attend was unable to
>>make the SPEERMINT timeslot due to a family obligation elsewhere
>>in the world. As the GEOPRIV chairs note below, Henning
>>Schulzrinne had previously been identified as a stand-in co-chair
>>for GEOPRIV. We were thus left with the prospect of seeing
>>SPEERMINT go forward with no available chairs, versus GEOPRIV
>>going forward with at least one previously identified stand-in
>>chair. We thus made a last minute decision to!
>   find the lesser of two evils by swapping the timeslots of the
>groups. This was a decision made at the last minute to find the
>lesser of two evils. We certainly didn't anticipate all of the
>ramifications this change would have in terms of attendance, and in
>retrospect, we may not have made the most best choice. The choice
>was not, however, motivated by a desire to prevent participants
>from attending either meeting.
>
>Thanks for your clear description.  I'm sure that Andy didn't
>anticipate his arm getting
>broken prior to IETF 68, and we all recognize that these things
>happen.  The concern
>that might be raised would be that Henning is strongly identified
>with one of the
>proposals that was being considered in the revised agenda, and he
>had never before
>been part of calling consensus in a GEOPRIV meeting.  As has
>already been noted,
>Henning stepped away from that duty when his own topic was under
>discussion.
>Having been in the room, I can say that I did not see it as a
>problem at the time.
>I believe, though, that the chairs are telling us, at least in
>part, how it appeared
>to those who were not in the room.  I think the right thing to do
>is acknowledge
>that is a potential perception, and let it guide us in how we
>implement the
>consensus call on the mailing list.
>
>
>><> Consensus calls: There were indeed quite a few hums taken in
>>the GEOPRIV room in Prague. In fact, the manner in which the
>>meeting was run with regard to hums was not typical for this group
>>- hums were used liberally to hone in on areas where there was,
>>and was not, consensus. That much said, not all of the hums were
>>consensus calls on working group issues; quite a few hums were
>>also taken on how we should proceed, for example (taken from the
>>minutes):
>>- HUM : Are you informed enough to make this choice
>>- HUM: Is it important to solve that today
>>- HUM: Will the group accept a plurality for the decision?
>>
>>This last hum in particular represented an unusual step, as the
>>GEOPRIV chairs note. It was a step recommended by the author of
>>RFC3929 (a document on "alternative decision making processes for
>>consensus-blocked decisions") when we asked him how we might
>>proceed. We resorted to this step because the room felt (based on
>>a previous hum) that it was important to walk away from the
>>meeting with a resolution.
>
>I am the author of RFC 3929, and I did say that this was one way
>forward.  This
>is not, however, exactly what RFC 3929 says.  That sets out
>preconditions
>before alternative methods can be used:
>
>3.1.  There is a clear decision to be reached
>
>3.2.  Proposals are available in Draft form
>
>3.3.  The working group has discussed the issue without reaching
>       resolution
>
>3.4.  There is an explicit working group last call to use an alternate
>       method
>
>The hums in the room were not after an explicit working group last
>call to use
>an alternate method; they were after a hum in the room to use
>plurality
>rather consensus in order to make forward progress.  I believe that
>the
>method used is within the spirit of 3929; more importantly, though,
>I think
>they are well within what a working group can use to drive consensus.
>All consensus requires compromise.  The call in the room could be
>rephrased
>as:  "Are you willing to compromise by adopting the other solution if
>it is the majority preference?"  I think that was the spirit in
>which it
>was being asked, and I hope we can retain that spirit of compromise as
>we ask for confirmation on the list.
>
>>To one particular point:
>>>Cullen Jennings both called the consensus
>>>and cast the last and tie-breaking vote in the room.
>>
>>We feel it is important to clarify that Cullen Jennings did not
>>call the consensus in the room. Rather, both Cullen and Ted Hardie
>>were independently counting the tallies for the plurality in the
>>room (two counters were used for redundancy, with the side effect
>>that presumably we eliminated any chance of partiality); it was in
>>fact Jon Peterson as chair who called the consensus, on the basis
>>of those reported tallies. Furthermore, although Cullen Jennings
>>did cast a vote when the count in the room was completed and
>>discovered to result in a tie, this was not the tie-breaking vote
>>for the purposes of determining consensus.
>
>I note that I did not vote in any of the questions where I was
>tallying the answers.  In
>the case where a tie was produced in the room I did say "Oh sh*t"
>loudly enough
>to elicit some nearby laughter, and it was after that that Cullen
>raised his hand.
>Having seen his face, I can thoroughly believe that it was
>frustration at the level
>of deadlock, and I was happy that counting the jabber room
>participants' positions
>resolved the question such that we could remove his vote from the
>tally.
>
>>In fact, votes from the Jabber room determined the plurality, and
>>the resulting tally did not favor the option for which Cullen had
>>voted. To the charge that
>>
>>>one of the hums was called on a question not described
>>>in an existing Internet-Draft.
>>
>>That can be said of all of the process listed hums above. We
>>aren't aware that process constrains us to make hums solely
>>related to questions within existing Internet-Drafts.
>
>I personally, don't think they do.  But the number of hums, the
>fact that we were
>working from audible (rather than written) questions, and the pace
>of the meeting
>all contribute to the issue of whether everyone understood the full
>impact
>of all the questions being asked (especially those folks
>contributing remotely,
>since this is always a difficult task).  This doesn't mean anything
>was done with
>ill-intent; it just highlights the need to follow up with well- 
>worded consensus calls
>on the mailing list.
>
>As I said before, I am personally happy with the outcome of the
>calls, as they
>move us forward; I would have been equally happy, in many cases,
>with the
>other choices, as they would do the same.  But I was at the meeting
>and could
>get a sense of the room.  If the combination of unusual features
>related to
>the meeting has raised questions in the community, then I believe
>the chairs
>are right to respond to them and to ensure that we all recognize to be
>careful in our followup.  That's not about blame, or an
>allegation.  I's a
>practical statement of what it will take to keep all of the
>participants
>committed to finishing the work.
>
>I hope the chairs and ADs can come to a rapid and amicable
>agreement on
>that, and that we can all move forward quickly.
>                         regards,
>                                 Ted
>
>
>
>
>>Cullen Jennings
>>Jon Peterson
>>RAI Area Directors
>>
>>
>>
>>On Apr 17, 2007, at 8:06 PM, Randall Gellens wrote:
>>
>>>All,
>>>
>>>We, the co-chairs of the GEOPRIV working group, have received
>>>private
>>>messages of concern regarding the GEOPRIV meeting held at IETF 68
>>>and
>>>the outcome of that meeting.  Upon initial investigation, we believe
>>>there were irregularities with the scheduling and agenda of the
>>>meeting that rise above the normal course of business within the
>>>IETF.  It is our opinion that at this time, it is best to bring
>>>notice of these irregularities to the working group in the interest
>>>of transparency and for the integrity of the IETF.
>>>
>>>
>>>AGENDA CHANGE
>>>
>>>The IETF process allows for agenda changes during meetings.  At the
>>>outset of the meeting, the agenda was changed substantially from the
>>>published agenda.  This change included removing the discussion of
>>>location signing and integrity and replacing it with an L7-LCP
>>>protocol consensus call.  However, evidence has arisen that the
>>>the Area Directors, Cullen Jennings and Jon Peterson, met
>>>privately with
>>>some participants of the GEOPRIV working group to inform them
>>>of this agenda change.  Cullen Jennings is the Area Advisor to
>>>GEOPRIV.
>>>
>>>If such meetings did occur, we believe them to be improper and to
>>>have potentially harmed the integrity and transparency of GEOPRIV
>>>and
>>>the IETF.  It is not proper for officiates of a working group to
>>>plan
>>>working group agenda changes and privately inform only select group
>>>participants.  Doing so disadvantages participants of the working
>>>group who have not been advised of this change.  This is especially
>>>true for this particular meeting as the agenda change
>>>precipitated 15
>>>hums during the meeting.
>>>
>>>
>>>SCHEDULE CHANGE
>>>
>>>As noted ahead of time, two of the three co-chairs, Andy and
>>>Allison,
>>>were unable to attend IETF 68.  The working group co-chairs planned
>>>for this in advance by finding a substitute acting chair, Henning
>>>Schulzrinne, to aid the one co-chair, Randy, who was able to
>>>attend.  This change was publicly announced on the mailing list
>>>before IETF 68.  However, the RAI Area Directors announced a last
>>>minute (Sunday) schedule change which created an unresolvable
>>>conflict
>>>for Randy.  The Area Directors executed this schedule change over
>>>the
>>>objections of the GEOPRIV co-chairs and in full knowledge of the
>>>conflict it created.  Additionally, the reason given was so that a
>>>working group co-chair for another working group could attend his
>>>meeting.
>>>
>>>As a result of the schedule change, the meeting was co-chaired by
>>>Jon
>>>Peterson, the other RAI Area Director.  Consequent to the agenda
>>>change regarding L7-LCP, Henning recused himself during the latter
>>>half the meeting, leaving Jon Peterson to solely run the meeting.
>>>During the meeting, a few participants expressed concerns regarding
>>>the agenda and schedule changes.  These concerns were dismissed
>>>by Jon.
>>>
>>>
>>>CONSENSUS CALLS
>>>
>>>As noted above, the meeting resulted in an unusually high (15)
>>>number
>>>of consensus calls for GEOPRIV.  This includes the unusual
>>>decision to
>>>use an alternate consensus method of a plurality vote to choose
>>>between
>>>two protocol proposals.  As noted in the raw minutes and the
>>>audio recording of the meeting, for the call that used the
>>>plurality voting method, Cullen Jennings both called the consensus
>>>and cast the last and tie-breaking vote in the room.  It should also
>>>be noted that one of the hums was called on a question not described
>>>in an existing Internet-Draft.
>>>
>>>The schedule change, the agenda change made known to a few select
>>>participants in advance, and the unusual sense-of-the-room hums,
>>>together
>>>create at least the appearance that there may have been an
>>>attempt to
>>>manipulate the IETF process to hold and predetermine the outcome of
>>>consensus calls.  Even the appearance of such manipulation,
>>>regardless of
>>>how well-intentioned the actions may have been, threatens the
>>>integrity
>>>and openness of the IETF.
>>>
>>>The IETF relies on not just open, fare processes, but also
>>>transparency that good procedures are followed.  The irregularities
>>>are now on the record of the group, hopefully never to be repeated.
>>>
>>>In order to follow IETF process, all resolutions put forward during
>>>a working group meeting must be ratified on the working group's
>>>mailing list.  The chairs will shortly be sending messages to
>>>formally
>>>initiate consensus calls on the sense-of-the-room hums that were
>>>taken
>>>in Prague.  Since so many hums were put forth during the IETF 68
>>>meeting, we plan to send multiple messages to the working group
>>>mailing list seeking ratification of the proposals.
>>>
>>>Because of what happened in Prague, the chairs want to make very
>>>sure that the subsequent consensus calls are very open and
>>>non-coercive. We ask all working group participants to please pay
>>>close attention to these calls and respond appropriately.
>>>
>>>The first of these messages will be sent shortly.
>>>
>>>Sincerely,
>>>
>>>The geopriv co-chairs:
>>>         - Andy
>>>         - Allison
>>>         - Randy
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Geopriv mailing list
>>>[email-masked]
>>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Ietf mailing list
>>[email-masked]
>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Geopriv mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

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

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