Bill - I think the IETF has tried to for years claim it has no members and
that simply isn't true - and I can arrange to have a Judge tell you and the
IETF that if you like.
The fact is that this WG has a membership and is constructing IETF process
that effects all of the other WG's for which they have no say or idea that
this is actually happening. By the way - was this existence of the IPR or
IETF WG disclosed to anyone - is there anything on the Website that talks
about the Governance Models of the IETF being in constant flux?
How about anything anywhere in any document forcing the Participants to
maintain their knowledge of the current contractual terms and conditions for
participating - or in getting the Sponsors' signoff therein as well? No? I
didn't think so.
The facts are simply that when this group changes the contractual terms for
how the IETF works and operates that this effects many others who have
initiatives underway and well - they have to be properly disclosed. Also its
probable that because of the really poorly written boilerplate inclusions
that those changes don't affect efforts underway inside the IETF when the
changes that would impact those efforts occur.
Let me explain - the T's and C's for an initiatives' participation are set
at the time that initiative was started. Once the contract between the IETF
and the Participants is set, its done. Since there is no set of terms and
conditions wherein the previous contractual terms are upgraded or morphed to
meet the newly updated participation T's and C's, those are not enforceable
therein. You understand that this system means that the IETF needs to create
some mapping of each Initiative and its set of rules constraining the
contractual participation of the parties.
The disclosure problem is that there is no "hey its your responsibility to
keep up with all the Rules Regs and T's and C's for this participation."
notice and no process for announcing changes to the Group that they impact
the most - that being the Participants in the IETF. So there is essentially
no formal disclosure to anyone that the IETF's rules and processes and the
contract between it and the participants has been changed.
More inline below.
----- Original Message -----
From: <bmanning(_at_)vacation(_dot_)karoshi(_dot_)com>
To: "todd glassey" <tglassey(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)net>
Cc: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; <bmanning(_at_)vacation(_dot_)karoshi(_dot_)com>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 9:11 AM
Subject: Re: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process rather than
some
todd,
you never did answer my question. when do you think the IETF
aquired the attribute of "members"?
It has members when it needs to claim it "voted on something to approve its
deployment" but that the term MEMBERS is not generally accepted by those who
want the system to stay as it is today.
open elections kind of presupose a defined electorate.
what would be the criteria for some entity to cast a vote in
such an "election"?
Being an active member of a WG - i.e. someone who's actions within the IETF
were constrained by what this WG does..
The point is that the terms of this, the IETF's 2-party contract, cannot be
changed unilatterally without notification of the relying parties.
Its not legal, and Jorge will confirm this if asked. Its basic Contract law
FWIU.
--bill
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 07:52:03AM -0700, todd glassey wrote:
Why cant the IETF and IESG Embrace open elections rather than the
technological version of the Electoral College its tried to put in place
with NOMCOM
Todd
_______________________________________________
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