I was reading the Appeals court ruling in the VeriSign case last night
and Michael Froomkin's paper on the anti-trust issues affecting ICANN.
If you follow the logic of the Appeals court opinion it is highly
unlikely that ICANN can remain a private organization. Since the
administration already understands that ICANN is a liability, that
only leaves the ITU.
http://www.discourse.net/archives/2009/06/9th_cir_revives_com_antitrust_case.html
One thing that struck me as a real risk is that similar concerns that
may affect the IETF might have been ignored because of the people and
the manner in which they were raised rather than on the merits. That
does not make them any less of a liability.
The current structures pretty much ensure that these issues only get
raised by fringe elements.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 6:20 AM, SM<sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net> wrote:
Hi Phillip,
At 08:32 10-06-2009, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
A more useful change would be to abolish NOMCON and for those
currently qualified to sit on NOMCON to elect the IAB and ADs
directly.
The implications of the above is much more than publicizing the IETF list of
nominees. The discussion of that document highlighted how a simple
statement like "we want an open list" is not as simple as it sounds.
Direct elections provide accountability and authority. Today we have
Direct elections can also turn into a popularity contest. Instead of
democracy, we can end up with "mediacracy".
Instead of the outcome of proposals to change the standards process
being 'the IESG didn't like them', we the broader membership[*] of the
IETF can demand reasons and persons. And we can kick out the people
who are being obstacles to change or proposing changes we disagree
with.
You can already ask for reasons. There's even a "face the participants" at
each IETF meeting where you can ask a question to the IAB, the IESG or a
particular member of the body.
There will always be obstacles to change. There are advantages to having
these obstacles or else we end up with proposals that suit the whim of the
day. The is also room in the current process to kick out people.
Direct elections allow for contrarian views to enter into the
discussions. The priority of successive NOMCONs has been to ensure
Contrarian views can be labelled as the view of the fringe when they are
only shared by a small minority. And such views or the people holding then
will be cast away.
Yes, there is a risk of factions, but not a very large one. I am a
member of the Oxford Union society and I know quite a bit about that
type of politics. A Cisco or a Microsoft faction would be entirely
counter-productive for the companies involved who come to the IETF to
build industry support for adoption of their proposals and to be part
of the consensus that emerges. The only type of faction that could be
sustained long-term would be one committed to a particular technical
principle such as preventing wiretap-friendly protocols or copyright
enforcement schemes and only then if there was a sizable
counter-faction or some group idiot enough to try to do that type of
thing in IETF.
Although a Cisco or Microsoft faction may be counter-productive, there will
be an incentive for factions to be formed as the proposed system provides an
environment conducive for that. In the new system, you'll also have to do
away with the notion of consensus. After all, that's not democratic. The
factions that will emerge in the long run are those that can use the system
to their advantage. When you have direct elections, you cannot aim for long
term goals as the people expect immediate results. Or else you won't stand
a chance when you put your name up for reelection.
We should try democracy. It is an old idea, seems to work.
For some, yes. As someone on this mailing list put it, we are guided by our
interests. The new system will only amplify that. The rule of the majority
is only effective if there is participation. We only have to look at the
amount of participation in here to see that there will always be a silent
majority which only springs to life when a narrowly focused issue captures
their attention.
[*] Yes, we should demand consideration as citizens, not serfs. The
pretense that the IETF has no members is very convenient for those
appointed, not so great for the rest of us.
You get the amount of consideration you deserve. If you behave like a serf,
you will be considered as one. :-) For the IETF to have members, it needs
to define a criteria for membership. This opens a debate about "currently
qualified to sit on NomCom". Most organizations that have adopted the
NomCom model have found it difficult to define a formal constituency and
devise an appropriate structure for it. You'll have to build in the check
and balances to keep the authority in check.
Readers are cautioned not to draw any conclusions from the information below
without a thorough analysis. The following is a distribution by company:
RFC authors Attendance
Cisco 12% 6%
Ericsson 3% 3%
Microsoft 2% 2%
Nokia 2% 2%
Juniper 2% 3%
Nortel 2% 1%
IBM 2% 0%
NTT 2% 2%
One or more companies might have a significant advantage in a
membership-based organization. There may even be an increase in membership
as the economic factors favor some companies. There would be pressure to
change the model from individuals to corporate.
I don't think that the current model is perfect. If you want to rock the
boat, I'm all for it. But before you do that, I'd like to have some
assurance that the boat won't sink. :-)
Regards,
-sm
--
--
New Website: http://hallambaker.com/
View Quantum of Stupid podcasts, Tuesday and Thursday each week,
http://quantumofstupid.com/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf