Hi Phillip,
At 08:32 10-06-2009, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
A more useful change would be to abolish NOMCON and for those
currently qualified to sit on NOMCON to elect the IAB and ADs
directly.
The implications of the above is much more than publicizing the IETF
list of nominees. The discussion of that document highlighted how a
simple statement like "we want an open list" is not as simple as it sounds.
Direct elections provide accountability and authority. Today we have
Direct elections can also turn into a popularity contest. Instead of
democracy, we can end up with "mediacracy".
Instead of the outcome of proposals to change the standards process
being 'the IESG didn't like them', we the broader membership[*] of the
IETF can demand reasons and persons. And we can kick out the people
who are being obstacles to change or proposing changes we disagree
with.
You can already ask for reasons. There's even a "face the
participants" at each IETF meeting where you can ask a question to
the IAB, the IESG or a particular member of the body.
There will always be obstacles to change. There are advantages to
having these obstacles or else we end up with proposals that suit the
whim of the day. The is also room in the current process to kick out people.
Direct elections allow for contrarian views to enter into the
discussions. The priority of successive NOMCONs has been to ensure
Contrarian views can be labelled as the view of the fringe when they
are only shared by a small minority. And such views or the people
holding then will be cast away.
Yes, there is a risk of factions, but not a very large one. I am a
member of the Oxford Union society and I know quite a bit about that
type of politics. A Cisco or a Microsoft faction would be entirely
counter-productive for the companies involved who come to the IETF to
build industry support for adoption of their proposals and to be part
of the consensus that emerges. The only type of faction that could be
sustained long-term would be one committed to a particular technical
principle such as preventing wiretap-friendly protocols or copyright
enforcement schemes and only then if there was a sizable
counter-faction or some group idiot enough to try to do that type of
thing in IETF.
Although a Cisco or Microsoft faction may be counter-productive,
there will be an incentive for factions to be formed as the proposed
system provides an environment conducive for that. In the new
system, you'll also have to do away with the notion of
consensus. After all, that's not democratic. The factions that will
emerge in the long run are those that can use the system to their
advantage. When you have direct elections, you cannot aim for long
term goals as the people expect immediate results. Or else you won't
stand a chance when you put your name up for reelection.
We should try democracy. It is an old idea, seems to work.
For some, yes. As someone on this mailing list put it, we are guided
by our interests. The new system will only amplify that. The rule
of the majority is only effective if there is participation. We only
have to look at the amount of participation in here to see that there
will always be a silent majority which only springs to life when a
narrowly focused issue captures their attention.
[*] Yes, we should demand consideration as citizens, not serfs. The
pretense that the IETF has no members is very convenient for those
appointed, not so great for the rest of us.
You get the amount of consideration you deserve. If you behave like
a serf, you will be considered as one. :-) For the IETF to have
members, it needs to define a criteria for membership. This opens a
debate about "currently qualified to sit on NomCom". Most
organizations that have adopted the NomCom model have found it
difficult to define a formal constituency and devise an appropriate
structure for it. You'll have to build in the check and balances to
keep the authority in check.
Readers are cautioned not to draw any conclusions from the
information below without a thorough analysis. The following is a
distribution by company:
RFC authors Attendance
Cisco 12% 6%
Ericsson 3% 3%
Microsoft 2% 2%
Nokia 2% 2%
Juniper 2% 3%
Nortel 2% 1%
IBM 2% 0%
NTT 2% 2%
One or more companies might have a significant advantage in a
membership-based organization. There may even be an increase in
membership as the economic factors favor some companies. There would
be pressure to change the model from individuals to corporate.
I don't think that the current model is perfect. If you want to rock
the boat, I'm all for it. But before you do that, I'd like to have
some assurance that the boat won't sink. :-)
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf