Hi Jefsey,
In this post and in at least one other recent post you talk about
filibustering on various mailing lists. I would like to make sure that I
understand what you are talking about, because this is very important to my
assessment of the proposed PR-Action. Prior to these posts, I did not
understand why you were making so many clearly off-topic posts on these
lists, but I did not assume that you were intentionally attempting to
disrupt the work of the IETF.
In the U.S. filibustering is a tactic used in the U.S. Senate that abuses a
loophole in the Senate rules to _intentionally_ block the work of the senate
for some period of time. Filibustering is not a democratic right, and it is
not a tactic that, IMO, should be used, encouraged or allowed on IETF
mailing lists.
I have read this post and other recent posts of yours as admissions that you
are _intentionally_ disrupting the work of the
ietf-languages(_at_)iana(_dot_)org list
and the LTRU WG mailing list via a tactic similar to filibustering. Is that
a correct interpretation of your messages?
Margaret
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On
Behalf Of JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 5:59 AM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Mr. Smith goes to the IETF
As far I am concerned, the PR-action engaged against me by
Harald Alvestrand is per se of no interest. I just have some
general comments and one question about it, I will address separately.
What is more interesting is how the IETF and the Internet
community may benefit from the three issues I raise:
multilingualism, ethic and user QA. The three of them have an
architectural impact (the IAB should be able to address
through the now silent IAB-discuss) and are part of a wide
"governance" change which question the RFC 3935 IETF mission.
These three questions (ethic and user QA being related in
part) are now under final escalation to the IAB.
At the present time, published contributions (Sam Hartman,
John Klensin, Harald Alvstrand) agree with me: filibustering,
however a democratic US invention, is a pest. IETF should do
everything not to need it (much more efficient than to fight
it). I think my contributions are of interest to consider in
this area. I suppose all the PESCI member are already on the
two copied lists.
1. due to the importance of the "war on culture"
"internationalization" represents, I was proposed support and
funding to oppose it. The problem are an architectural layer
violation, a narrow vision and a lack of information. Not a
lack of competence. To kill the IETF for that was inadequate
(or premature). I am already a problem, would we have been
two or three of us ... Had we been 200 as I was proposed ...
I have computed that $ 20.000 are enough to block the IETF.
This can be discussed, but this is something we should
urgently consider, when political, commercial and civil
rights interests make the IETF, and most of all the IANA, a
key target (the USG says for sale- may be to protect it?).
I refused it.
2. I proposed Brian Carpenter to get "would be filibusters" a
special status in the consensus process as "user QA rep".
With rights and duties.
This was denied.
3. I proposed an evolution in the WG working method. In using
position links: every contributor expresses his positions on
a page he can update as the debate goes. I proposed this to
the GNSO WG-Review which supported it and I use it in some
work. This filters out "standard" participants' blabla. It
permits everyone to stay, every concept to be documented and
progressively trimmed, and external experts to call in.
Consensus is when all the positions are equivalent or have
identified they cannot agree. Consensus review is easy and
informative.
This was not considered.
4. I have engaged an IESG, and now an IAB appeal, to know if
this kind of debate is, or not, part of the IETF. IESG said
"no". I want a confirmation by the IAB (so no one can claim
there is a conflict) before engaging into the organisation of
a solution. My solution is a dedicated TF sharing into the
Internet standard process and reviewing the Charters and the
Drafts during the LC, or upon request. That TF would
permanently interact with the users. I think it can be
engaged in ethic (COI and societal impact) and "governance"
issues. The interest is that there can be several TF until
one emerges as a stable and productive solution. I would
favor it to be eventually part of ISOC and to interface (and
protect the IETF from) the IGF.
This is under final consideration. Interested people can
share in a Draft.
This IETF has to understand that the Internet has become mature.
Mature for a product - and specially for a communication
technology - is when the technology is no more the leader but
when usage decides.
This is what they call "governance". This means that the IGF
is going to deliver scores of Jefseys. Engineers who can code
user response as per the user' requests (far more complex
than what IETF does today).
The NSF GENI project will not be alone.
I still consider there is a difference between specifying
(Charter) and documenting (WG work). But most, because they
will be from Lobbies or Govs, will not bother. This will lead
to balkanization and to IETF bottle necks. Already, I saw
that with the lobby driven
WG-LTRU: the Charter was not considered. WG Consensus by
exhaustion, IETF consensus by disinterest and IESG consensus
by impossible knowledge of everything lead to dispute like
the one I have with Harald. There will be scores of them soon
if we do not find a structural solution.
jfc
_______________________________________________
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