Behalf Of Frank Ellermann
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
The criteria applied for membership of NOMCON could be applied to
direct voting rights without any difficulty.
Selling out vs, pseudo-random ? So far the worst idea I've
understood on this list.
I don't think that direct elections would increase corporate influence
in the way you imagine, quite the reverse in fact.
there is nobody who has the authority to represent the IETF
Something wrong with Brian, IESG, or IAB ? If I don't like
what they do I can simply say so.
What if your problem is what has not been done for ten years and shows
no more sign of being done today than ten years ago?
there has to be a negotiation that takes place between the parties
whose buy in required for deployment.
One of the more funny MARID experiences were the dozens of
one-time-posters all declaring "yes, we will deploy
People were asked if they planned to deploy a spec, they answered.
Given that there were no real technical issues being discussed in the
group at any point in its life I don't know what is wrong about one time
posts in response to a direct question.
There were also a lot of people who only appeared on the other side when
the patent license issue was raised.
I do think that it was a question that should never been in scope for
the group. If a standards body is going to allow non-royalty free specs
(as the IETF does) I think that the choice of RF or RAND should be
explicitly part of the original group charter. There are some instances
where every possible approach to a problem are encumbered and RF is not
possible. That said, there are few problems where this is the case and
not many people who are willing to support such groups unless they own
I believe that the RF/RAND choice should be binary. Individual WGs
should not be allowed to define or negotiate RF terms on their own. They
do not have the necessary bargaining power to negotiate terms, the IESG
Leaving the negotiation to individual WGs means that we end up with the
lawyers on both sides negotiating through proxies. Negotiating at the
institution level means that the lawyers are forced to become directly
involved. It also means that the corporate lawyers are much more likely
to make concessions. In the MARID group a patent holder was being asked
to surrender rights in one particular case. But even though this would
effectively set a precedent for that particular rights holder that would
be insisted on in every future case, the rights holder would not be able
to depend on that precedent applying in any other case. In other words
they were being asked to unilaterally disarm without any assurance that
any other party would be required to disarm in similar cases.
Negotiating at the IESG level also means that in the case where there is
an honest disagreement between the lawyers over what the law is it is
possible to bring in outside expertise.
Negotiating principles rather than specifics means that the conversation
is not driven by comments of the form 'if it was anyone else but X.
these terms would be acceptable'.
Ietf mailing list