Subject: Running code

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 09:12:59 +0200

Hi,

Two years ago NomCom had 3 members from one company. At that time,
I raised the issue of changing the rules to avoid such a result,
and was told it was a one-off and not to worry.

This year it has 4 members from one company (not the same one).

I have nothing against the individuals involved either last time
or this time, but IMHO we now have running code to show that
this is a problem in our selection process that we need to fix.

  Brian

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 02:16:19 -0700

Brian and all,

  "Selection" processes such as this one should be random so as to avoid

such a problem and to keep fresh blood in the organization.  But of
course
there are now as there has been for a number of years an aversion to
that.  Hence, some other skewed and shall we say, less than optimum
method may be sought.  However the result will likely be similar...

Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 09:22:06 +0200

Brian,

the normal response to this is "we don't do companies, people
act as individuals". While I realize that that the "company aspect"
could be important in this context and needs to be fixed, it could
have an impact in other contexts as well. If it is fixed here, we
need to "fix it" elsewhere, or clearly motivate why it is a problem
here and only here.

/Loa

-- 
     Loa Andersson
     Chief Architect,
     Utfors Research, Architecture and Future Lab (URAX)
     Utfors AB
     Råsundavägen 12
     Box 525, 169 29 Solna
     Office          +46 8 5270 2000
     Office direct   +46 8 5270 5038
     Mobile          +46 70 848 5038
     Email           [email-masked]
     WWW             www.utfors.se

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 02:20:58 -0700

Loa and all,

  Good points here Loa.  Hence why I just earlier suggested that
a random "Selection" process be used.  However using such a
random process would un-stack the deck, so to speak.  Parish the
thought, eh?  >;)

Regards,

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 15:17:24 +0700

Date:        Fri, 20 Sep 2002 09:22:06 +0200
    From:        Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | the normal response to this is "we don't do companies, people
  | act as individuals". While I realize that that the "company aspect"
  | could be important in this context and needs to be fixed, it could
  | have an impact in other contexts as well. If it is fixed here, we
  | need to "fix it" elsewhere, or clearly motivate why it is a problem
  | here and only here.

That one is easy to see.   In (essentially) all other IETF activities,
all is done in the open.   If people who happen to come from the same
organisation start acting in concert to achieve a result (a practice
not totally unheard of, though fortunately not all that common) then
it usually becomes quite obvious, quite quickly, and everyone else can
take that into account - that they're acting together doesn't make their
point invalid, but it does raise some suspicions, so we can be just that
bit more careful.

The nomcom doesn't work like that, all its activities (or all that
matter) are done behind closed doors.   There's no way the community
can tell who is doing what - and whatever we eventually decide the
role of the liaisons is, I certainly can't see that it should be to
report back to the bodies they're from (or the rest of the community)
on who is voting which way inside the nomcom.

Even if we assume that everyone acts in entirely the best interests of
the IETF, and we currently have no reason to assume that anything
different is happening, it can be very difficult for members of the
same organisation where one might happen to be senior, and the others
much more junior, and perhaps not completely willing to oppose their
senior colleague (and note: I know none of the people concerned this
time, and have no idea what their internal dynamics might be).

So, I agree with Brian, this is one that we should be fixing.   A limit
of 2 nomcom members from one organisation seems like it should do no
harm - the random selection of members from the pool of volunteers can
just go on generating more numbers, with any that were picked, but come
from the same organisation as 2 earlier selections being ignored.

Obviously, this to apply to the next nomcom selected, not this one.

kre

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 11:15:35 +0200

All,

I'm not going to argue this much, but can't resist this one.

There is a fundamental difference between saying "we work as
individuals" and "we represent extra-IETF organization interests".

If it is a problem it needs to be fixed, not only in the NomCom,
but everywhere.

And...

how does limit to 2 from the same organization get around the
senior - junior issue? Shouldn't it be just 1?

How do you define "organization" - are 2 members from FOO Forum
from the same organization? are 5? What happens if one of the
members of the NomCom changes job during the period, there by
creating a group of 3 from FOO Inc? Are 2 people from a single
European country a problem? Are 6 from the US?

Note - I'm not arguing that this is not something that should be
fixed. I'm asking for arguments that it is the right thing to do.
And would like to see something more than the hand waving I've seen
so far.
Are there proof that people from the same organization has acted in
a way that has been harmful to the IETF, more than people representing
different organizations?

I'm all for diversification - if you try to run the argument that we
want participation NomCom from as many organizations and background
as possible because this is a good thing I would be far more
receptive.

/Loa

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 04:37:04 -0700

Loa and all,

> If it is a problem it needs to be fixed, not only in the NomCom,

  It is a problem in the noncom, and has been for some time.  And
yes it needs to be fixed in the noncom and elsewhere.

> senior - junior issue? Shouldn't it be just 1?

  Why does there need to be such a designation Sr. and Jr.?

> European country a problem? Are 6 from the US?

  Good point here...  No would be my answer...

> a way that has been harmful to the IETF, more than people representing

  As Robert correctly pointed out most if not all of what the Noncom
does is behind closed doors, hence proving one argument or another
difficult if not impossible or at least not probable.

> as possible because this is a good thing I would be far more

  Good!  Yes we should want participation in the NonCom from
 as many organizations and background as possible because
it is a good thing...

Regards,

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 17:30:08 +0700

Date:        Fri, 20 Sep 2002 11:15:35 +0200
    From:        Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | If it is a problem it needs to be fixed, not only in the NomCom,
  | it everywhere.

You're ignoring the difference between the way that the nomcom works
and the way that the rest of the IETF works.

  | how does limit to 2 from the same organization get around the
  | senior - junior issue? Shouldn't it be just 1?

It doesn't, and it could be just 1 perhaps, I suggested 2 (just a
suggestion) to avoid being too limiting, and because 2 of 10 is only
a small fraction, with little overall impact, 3 of 10 is starting to
get close to (practical) control.

  | How do you define "organization"

Yes, that one is a problem, yet to be solved.

  | What happens if one of the members of the NomCom changes job during
  | the period, there by creating a group of 3 from FOO Inc?

Another issue that needs discussion, I have no particular opinion.

  | Are 2 people from a single
  | European country a problem? Are 6 from the US?

No, because it is the perception of who can control what that matters.

  | Are there proof that people from the same organization has acted in
  | a way that has been harmful to the IETF, more than people representing
  | different organizations?

No, no proof at all, not even the suggestion that it might have happened.
Not that we should know anyway, as how the nomcom works is supposed to
be confidential.   That is, if anyone did have such proof, or even a
suspicion, they should keep it to themselves.

But again, what is important here is the perception of fairness.  In the
IETF apart from the nomcom, we can watch, and see several people from one
organisation, all supporting the same idea - and then we can reject it,
or we can accept it, after having evaluated it and received endorsements
form others.  And all of this is in the open.

The issue is that we simply do not (and should not) know what is going on
inside the nomcom, and thus we must do all we can to rid the process of
anything that might even just hint at allowing any form of bias, or
external control.   The random selection is/was supposed to do that, but
if it keeps on producing clumps of appointees from the same organisation
(from what is clearly the same organisation, without needing to worry about
the corner cases), then there is at least the perception of the possibility
of control.

There's another issue as well - when one organisation ends up being in a
dominant position on the nomcom, what is to happen when one of the best
candidates for an open position happens to come from the same organisation?

If the members of the nomcom that are from the same organisation recuse
themselves, then the nomcom is left with (perhaps) way too few members to
make a proper decision (imagine if 6 or 7 of the nomcom were all from the
same organisation).

If they don't, and they appoint the person from the same organisation,
won't there at the very least be suspicions of bias?   You appointed that
person because you know them better than the others, or worse, so you
can take over control of the xyz area...

Then, because of that possibility, isn't it possible that the nomcom would
deliberately not appoint the person from the same organisation as many of
their members, just to avoid those kinds of accusations, or thoughts, of
possible bias?   And might that not mean that the IETF would be left without
the best appointee, just to avoid the appearance of bias?

And if that happens, won't there be people who at least, think, that
the actual appointee wasn't appointed on merit, but only because the
better candidate came from the wrong organisation (the one that is over
represented on the nomcom).

The way to avoid all of this is to prevent the nomcom from being dominated
by any organisation/interest group.

  | I'm all for diversification - if you try to run the argument that we
  | want participation NomCom from as many organizations and background
  | as possible because this is a good thing I would be far more
  | receptive.

No.  That's exactly what we don't want to require.   That is, diversification
is fine, but attempting to specify how to achieve it is impossible.  Much
harder than working out what is an organisation to an acceptable degree
of clarity (because the default can always be, if in doubt, it is the same
organisation - the only effect of that is that someone misses out on being
on the nomcom who otherwise would have been chosen - which for most people
would probably be a relief - but should never be a cause for complaint).

kre

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 12:51:10 +0200

All,

two small comments

Robert Elz wrote:

< ... snip ...>
> and the way that the rest of the IETF works.

I seems to be generally held that the members of the NomComs so far
selected has done a good job, the motivation has been to do the best
for IETF, why mend if not broken?

< ... snip ...>
> No, because it is the perception of who can control what that matters.

Do you seriously think that there is no perception, at least outside the
US, that IETF is an organization controlled by the US?

/Loa

< ... snip ...>

---

From: avri doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 12:51:35 +0200

speaking personally,
as one of those who was from a multiple company representation in the past,

if they behave in such a manner as to be above suspicion,

  (and the rest of the nomcom members
   as well as the community at large will be watching for that)

then there is a greater 'liabilty' for the company with the multiple 
representation then there is for the ietf.

i do beleive that the can of worms this opens for the entire
'at the ietf we are individuals & not the minions of a company'
issue should be approached very carefully.

a.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:32:38 +0200

> for IETF, why mend if not broken?

That's what people said two years ago. Well, now I think we
have proof that the selection procedure *is* broken, and it's
only a matter of time until somebody decides to exploit it.

> US, that IETF is an organization controlled by the US?

Excuse me, but that is not an IETF problem. Our industry was largely
built by US companies and that is a profound matter that we can't
influence. What we *can* influence is the defect in our own process
that potentially allows one company to swamp the NomCom for its
own advantage.

I agree with kre's proposed limit of two people from the same
employer. And I think, since we do trust each other as individuals,
it's easy enough: each volunteer has to state who their principal
employer is. And since we are pragmatists, we won't worry about
companies that are owned by other companies because that is too
hard to check.

   Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:38:04 +0200

> issue should be approached very carefully.

Yes, but what if next year we end up with 6 people from
Big Bad Evil Co? However well those 6 individuals behave,
nobody would believe the committee was unbiased.

   Brian

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 19:04:40 +0700

Date:        Fri, 20 Sep 2002 12:51:35 +0200
    From:        avri doria <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | then there is a greater 'liabilty' for the company with the multiple 
  | representation then there is for the ietf.

Quite possibly.   But we should be protecting everyone involved,
including the IETF as a whole, the nomcom members, and their employers,
from suspicions, or accusations, of bias of impropriety.

  | i do beleive that the can of worms this opens for the entire
  | 'at the ietf we are individuals & not the minions of a company'
  | issue should be approached very carefully.

I agree.   Everything in this area needs to be approached carefully.
There's no big hurry here, we have 9-10 months (or so) before we need
to have worked out the procedures for the next nomcom.

What's relevant now is that we begin that careful examination of the
issues (including the one of how we identify the organisation - for
which Brian's suggestion is fine for me, for now anyway), and not just
(without thought) decide that we should do nothing, because any activity
is too difficult.

kre

---

From: Steve Silverman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 08:17:42 -0400

I would like to support both the analysis and the solution proposed below.
Steve Silverman

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Elz [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 4:17 AM
> To: Loa Andersson
> Cc: Brian E Carpenter; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Running code
> 
> 
>    
>

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 08:39:11 -0400

I think kre and Brian have said it all (they get up earlier than I do).
I suspect 3 from the same organization would be tolerable, but barely,
so I also support a limit of 2.  It will be healthier for all of us.  A
limit of 1 per organization would not be beneficial to the process.

What's an organization?  Let a human decide, specifically the NomCom
chair.  First the program can look for exact matches in affiliation and
avoid having more than two.  When it presents a final list, there might
be cosmetic distinctions, such as "Large Company" versus "Large Company
Internet Division", which a human can quite easily understand actually
refer to the same organization.

Should we limit WG activity to no more than 2 individuals per
organization.  No.  Again, as kre said, WG activity is a very different
context than the NomCom.  Should we limit IESG membership?  No again,
since they are chosen by the NomCom.

Thanks ... Scott

---

From: Donald Eastlake 3rd <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 09:29:51 -0400 (EDT)

I have to agree with kre and Brian.

Working Groups and the IETF don't even have a defined membership but if
you look at their mailing lists they are normally huge and hard to
domiante in the public forum of the mailing list. I haven't seen
anything hard to deal with in attempts to pack a WG and in any case,
that is something the WG chair can take into account.

But the nomcom is different. Its small and sensitive and works, as do
almost all personel seletion processes and hire/fire decisions, in
private. 3 members with the same affiliation is bad. 4 or more is
unacceptable for the future.

It is well known that some companies, due, in my opinion, to the
misguided transporting to the IETF of the company voting block politics
that infest so many other standards organizations and which I see every
IEEE 802 meeting I go to, have strong internal campaigns to get every
employee who is eligible to volunteer for the IETF nomcom. Such
campaigns usually state quite clearly that their purpose is to try to
get as many employees of the company as possible on the nomcom to
maximize influence.

Every nomcom I have participated in (2 as a voting member, 1 as chair,
and 1 as past chair) has informally taking the affiliation of potential
nominees into account. The feeling was that, say, both ADs in an area
being from the same organization (company, university, whatever) or too
many IAB members with the same affiliation would look bad to the outside
world no matter what. The IAB and IESG have specific defined members and
the list is public and are scrutinized, for good or ill, by those
evaluating the IETF. Not that any nomcom has thought there should be a
hard and fast rule on this, since their might be overriding
circumstances, but it was a factor taken into consideration by most
nomcom members. (IAB and IESG members change affiliation also, perhaps
more than nomcom members due to their longer terms, but there really
isn't anything you can do about that.)

Similarly, the nomcom has a specific defined members and the list is
public. Frequent appearance of bias should be avoided unless such
avoidance would cause severe problems. With the huge (from a historic
point of view)  number of eligible volunteers we are getting, a
restriction on multiple nomcom members with the same affilitation isn't
going to cause any selection problem at all, as far as I can see.

4 nomcom members affiliated with one company is proof that, for the
nomcom, action should be taken. I'd somewhat prefer a rule of only 1
voting member affiliated with an organization although a rule of 2 would
be adequate. To avoid disruption, changes of affiliation should not
count. All volunteers would be required to give their affiliation and
that information should appear in the public list of volunteers.

Donald

On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Robert Elz wrote:

> Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 15:17:24 +0700
> From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
> To: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]

-- 
======================================================================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                       [email-masked]
 155 Beaver Street              +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-851-8280(w)
 Milford, MA 01757 USA                   [email-masked]

---

From: Jim Fleming <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 09:43:54 -0500

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Loa Andersson" <[email-masked]>
> US, that IETF is an organization controlled by the US?

I think that the "US" people and government view the IETF as irrelevant.
Standards are set in the U.S.A via *market forces*. It is one of the only countries
in the world where that is the case. Most other countries turn to the ITU, IEEE, etc.
to tell them what to do. In many cases, one person in a country tells the leaders that
the ITU said so-and-so and that is all it takes to make-it-so in that country. The
IETF may be able to prey on third-world countries the way the ITU does, but
Americans will not be fooled. U.S. leaders are clearing the path for free markets to
work. If they do not, then we may as well all regress to communist/socialist states
as promoted by the I* society.

Whitehouse Ready to Release Next Generation Internet Plan
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-958159.html?tag=politech
http://www.politechbot.com/p-03994.html
http://www.uscryptomail.org/cybersecurity/

Note: The new plan calls for the same architecture used with IPv8 and IPv16,
whereby, users do not have direct access to the (out-of-band) IPv16 network.

Jim Fleming
2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...IPv16 is even closer...
http://ipv8.dyndns.tv
http://ipv8.yi.org
http://ipv8.dyns.cx
http://ipv8.no-ip.com
http://ipv8.no-ip.org
http://ipv8.no-ip.biz
http://ipv8.no-ip.info
http://ipv8.myip.us
http://ipv8.dyn.ee
http://ipv8.community.net.au
http://ipv8.ods.org

---

From: Jim Fleming <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 12:38:23 -0500

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
> 
> I think you are totally wrong here. We talk about a relation network (I 
> know the US doctrine has not yet accepted that there is a three level 
> architecture : communications, relations services, information). If you 
> fight the people you could talk to, very soon you run your network alone. 

Let the market place decide that. The main thing the United States Government
needs to do is to make sure the rest of the world is PAYING to participate in
U.S. Government controlled cyberspace. People want to participate, and pay
nothing for the infrastructure.

You are looking at a potential $6 billion dollar per year revenue generator for
the U.S. Government (via its patsy contractors of course)...
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
...that is $168 million dollars per /8. Will Europe and RIPE be sending the checks soon ?

Jim Fleming
2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...IPv16 is even closer...
http://www.netfilter.org/
http://www.analogx.com/contents/dnsdig.htm
http://ipv8.dyndns.tv
http://ipv8.yi.org
http://ipv8.dyns.cx
http://ipv8.no-ip.com
http://ipv8.no-ip.org
http://ipv8.no-ip.biz
http://ipv8.no-ip.info
http://ipv8.myip.us
http://ipv8.dyn.ee
http://ipv8.community.net.au
http://ipv8.ods.org

---

From: Jim Fleming <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 12:53:20 -0500

----- Original Message ----- 

> The interest of everyone is to coopete, not to compete. I personnally find 
> totally wrong that warmonger attitude. It is detrimetal to us all. Dont you 
> think so?
> jfc
> 

By the way, it is interesting to see you switch to a U.S. Department of COMmerce regulated TLD.

I am sure you realize that the so-called ccTLDs are going to have to be removed from the
root zones for not having IN-ADDR.[TLD] zones and/or for not being a favored nation with respect
to the U.S.A.

What will happen to .FR ?....as the marketplace decides what it wants...

Should we release the C@t ?
http://www.ddj.com/articles/1993/9310/

Jim Fleming
2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

---

From: avri doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 20:46:03 +0200

Hi,

This topic is not on-topic for this list.
Please move the discussion elsewhere.

Thanks

Avri Doria
Chair Nomcom WG

---

From: Jim Fleming <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:52:19 -0500

Received: from sm.luth.se ([213.114.106.165]) by mf1.bredband.net

Are you in .SE or .NET ?

Jim Fleming

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 08:16:50 +0200

> I have to agree with kre and Brian.

Me four....

at the time of the last discussion, I thought the Right Solution might be 
to depend on people's honor in an "unbalanced" situation, and that one of 
the randomly picked members should choose to resign; the role of the 
process would be to have a process by which to supply a new member 
replacing him or her.

But a written rule might work better....

                Harald