On 14:48 07/04/2005, Jeroen Massar said:
In short..... if you don't have a lot of financial backing one is not
getting anywhere in an organization that is supposed to based on
individuals, whom are supposed to be doing work on free open internet
standards, but are unable to do so over that internet they are making
those standards for...
Just my two cents ;)
You are absolutely right. If you only have two cents and your work ...
Actually there is not only financial backing to consider but corporate,
cultural, language, time, etc. This was no problem as long as the IETF wasi
the technical forum for consensus uncovering for the Academic ASCII
Internet (you will note that corporates are vendors). What is worrying is
that the IETF mainly lacks participation of users: application developpers,
states, of non-American languages communities and cultures (I do not speak
of some individuals), of business and of private users.
This problem is partly addressed by the consensus rule. It normally means
that if one objects with seriousness he blocks the decision. The humming
and rough consensus are on the long range obviously creeping from a "no-no"
to a "yes-enough" system. I have nothing against or for it, I just observe
that this system will most probably be unable to deliver responses to the
non-IETF dominant usership - while it increasingly represents (deployment
of the internet, US-nexusitation of the IETF) the broad majority of the
Internet users.
This translates into the WSIS. This also technically translates in the real
life technology (because the non-IETF people also are designers,
developpers and vendors, or operators and states with money). DNS, VoIP,
NAT, P2P, GRID, MP3, etc. have not been invented and made operational by
the IETF. The network is something alive, so this creates a real problem of
divergence. While the digital world converges, the IETF "dominance" seems
to diverge: IPv6/NAT, IDN/ML.ML , langtags and comming DNS/PAD, mixed
attitude towards ITU, WSIS, States.
Scott said:
> > But we *often* take straw polls in f2f meetings,
> but we do not count hands - we look to see if there is a clear
difference between hands one way and or the other
IMHO here is the basic flaw. One serious hand is enough to block a
decision. The role of the IESG should not to be to count hands, but to
uunderstand if the opposing (even single) hand is qualified to represent a
need and if it represents it adequately. Then to seek IAB to find a way to
address that opposition while preserving the agreement of others.
I keep saying this to @large, but I think it is correct everywhere: "I do
not ask my telephone to be democratic, I ask it to work". Millions can
agree the software code is good, the one who says that the battery is
missing is the one users will considered.
jfc
Greets,
Jeroen
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf