From: Noel Chiappa [mailto:jnc(_at_)mercury(_dot_)lcs(_dot_)mit(_dot_)edu]
> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com>
> The question to ask is why is there a NOMCON at all.
Why not do what
> every other major professional body does and hold
elections with the
> electorate being defined in the same way that NOMCON
membership is?
Because we want to reduce the amount of politics in the IETF,
and also try and make the selection more careful. Rather than
having everyone spend ten minutes on deciding who to select,
a subset (which the random draw hopefully makes reasonably
representative of the group as a whole) does a more in-depth
and thought-through selection.
You are going to have politics regardless of the method of selection.
The question is whether those politics are contained within the IETF system or
whether they spill into the court system. This has come much closer to
happening than most realize.
We currently have three major standards bodies that are creating Internet
standards. This number is likely to grow, it is arguable that there are four or
five bodies already. The IETF still operates as if no other body exists.
Lack of accountability also means lack of authority. It is not possible for the
IESG, the IAB or even the IETF chair to undertake major organizational reforms
precisely because the selection mechanism deprives them of authority. Term
limits are a net benefit but they make this particular problem worse.
> I am not aware that this procedure has caused
significant problems in
> the IEEE or the ABA. Those are also volunteer organizations.
In some circles, the ABA (I assume you mean the "American Bar
Association", not the "American Banking Association" or any
of the other organizations that share that initialism) is
seen as a clueless joke, and the ABA leadership is a large
part of the reason.
Arguments that begin 'some people say' are not particularly credible. The
circles you refer to are partisan political organizations that object to the
political positions the ABA has taken. The ABA is able to rebut the partisan
attacks precisely because there is a large measure of internal democracy and
accountability.
Now consider what the position would be if the ABA had a NOMCON type selection
scheme. I think it is very clear that the system would not withstand scruitiny
by partisan critics whose evaluation criteria are concurrence with their
political ideology.
The actions of the IETF have rather wider impact than the ABA and the partisan
criticism comes at the diplomatic level rather than national politics. It would
be much better to be able to point to strong measures of accountability and
democracy before the storm hits rather than being forced to introduce them
under fire.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf