On 16 Jun 2003, Paul Vixie wrote:
pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com ("Hallam-Baker, Phillip") writes:
The FTC testimony was dire. The ASRG chair stated that he believed the
group would come up with a technical solution. Every one of the other
members of the technical panel then stated that they thought it had
already failed. It made the IETF look ridiculous.
What happened to open and inclusive?
it didn't scale. but, rather than change the written rules, more emphasis
has been put on "design teams" and "directorates" in order to get work done
in ways the written rules don't cover. note that i think this is bad, and
that the written rules should be changed, and then followed, and that the
way things are trying to get done now has scaled even less well than before.
I'm not big fan of rules... But the way it is now is not working too well
- especially for ASRG. I do agree with Paul Judge that we CAN come with
tecnical solution (but it may still need to be backed up by some laws as
well). But the problem is with ASRG itself, there are some there who are
truly interested in spam research issues, but nothing is really being done
and one or two topics are complete predominant (plus couple additional
people on the list who just try to critisize everything) and the group
itself is not producing the results as a result of that. I would personally
very much like to work withing ASRG but I stayed away lately because of
the above problems and I'm just keeping some watch over what is happening.
I do agree that problem with ASRG is in part due to its chair and his inability
to get things in order, in which case ultimate control would fall on IRTF
and IETF leadership which has not done anything either and in fact IETF as
many pointed out has tried to avoid taking on the spam issue. Good thing
is IPR issue is now being worked on there (I've that needs to be looked at
3 months ago and that no IPR for ASRG is worst scenarioa - nobody listed then)
but that is small step and rather procedural one at that.
And BTW - is this correct that I'm hearing that Phillip is not being allowed
to post at ASRG? If this is so - that is completely inappropriate - whatever
his comments and work outside ASRG is, I've not seen anything within ASRG
that should have prompted removal of posting priviliges - he's been good
contributor for ASRG early one and shutting him up is just improper
exerscise of his powers by ASRG chair (if that is what is going on).
---
William Leibzon
Elan Communications Inc.
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net