Subject: Final Call: accept incorporated comments

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 15:49:44 -0500 (EST)

Just a reminder, the way I will work is to post a message to start a
thread on a topic.  After discussion I'll post a message similar to this
one (i.e., subject line of "final call") with proposed text changes.  If
you agree with the change do nothing.  If you disagree with the change
respond to the list with why.

This one message is an exception to the extent that there are a set of
changes I made to the document without any prior discussion on this
list.  They are listed in the document itself under "Changes from
RFC2727" and they are listed in the agenda under the heading of:
"INCORPORATED - STILL OPEN FOR COMMENT (as of 3/12/2002)"

As previously stated, I incorporated these particular changes because I
believed they were either editorial or clarifying with respect to the
intent of the document.  This is your opportunity to disagree.

If you agree with these changes do nothing.  If you disagree please say
so within the 2 weeks that start today.

For your convenience, here is a "diff" of the changes from RFC2727.
Since I have converted the original document to use the Rose XML tools,
the format has changed and if you were to diff it you would find it
problematic at best.

Enjoy,

Jim

63c63
<    This document is a revision of and supercedes RFC2282.  [2]  It is a
---
>    This document is a revision of and supercedes RFC2727.  [1] It is a
81,83c81,87
<    reference.  The time frames assume that the IETF meets at least once
<    per calendar year.  This document specifies time frames relative to
<    the first IETF of the calendar year, or simply "First IETF".
---
>    reference.  The time frames assume that the IETF meets three times
>    per calendar year with approximately equal amounts of time between
>    them.  The meetings are referred to as the First IETF, Second IETF,
>    or Third IETF as needed.
>
>    A sitting member of either the IAB or IESG is a person who is
>    currently serving a term of membership in that committee.
104,108c108
<    predecessor: RFC2282. [2]
<
<
<
<
---
>    predecessor: RFC2727. [1]
218c218
<    6.  All deliberations and supporting information that relates to
---
>    6.  All deliberations and supporting information that relate to
239c239,257
<    7.  Unless otherwise specified, the advise and consent model is used
---
>    7.  The Chair is responsible for ensuring all information related to
>        the selection and confirmation of candidates is archived with the
>        Internet Society President upon completion of the nominating
>        committee's responsibilities.
>
>        Information includes but is not limited to the archive of any
>        electronic discussion forum used by the nominating committee, for
>        example, a mailing list.
>
>        All electronic information should be collected and formatted as a
>        single file using a popular application format, for example, zip
>        or tar, to facilitate its management and storage.
>
>        Electronic information should be encrypted using a popular and
>        generally well regarded security application.  Encryption keys
>        must be provided separately to the Internet Society President in
>        a mutually agreed upon format.
>
>    8.  Unless otherwise specified, the advise and consent model is used
375a376,383
>        The appointment must be completed no later than the Second IETF
>        meeting to ensure it can be announced during a plenary session at
>        that meeting as determined by the IETF secretariat.  This ensures
>        the Chair has approximately two months to conduct the selection
>        process for the nominating committee members and approximately
>        one month to organize one or more initial meetings of the
>        nominating committee prior to the Third IETF meeting.
>
381,388d388
<        The list of open positions is published with the solicitation to
<        facilitate community members choosing between volunteering for an
<        open position and volunteering for the nominating committee.
<
<        The list and solicitation must be publicized using at least the
<        same mechanism used by the IETF secretariat for its
<        announcements.
<
396a397,409
>        The list of open positions is published with the solicitation to
>        facilitate community members choosing between volunteering for an
>        open position and volunteering for the nominating committee.
>
>        The opportunity to volunteer must be available for at least one
>        month.  The opportunity to volunteer must end no later than one
>        week prior to the earliest time at which the selection process
>        may begin.
>
>        The list and solicitation must be publicized using at least the
>        same mechanism used by the IETF secretariat for its
>        announcements.
>
399a413,417
>        The 3 meetings are the three most recent meetings that ended
>        prior to the date on which the solicitation for nominating
>        committee volunteers was submitted for distribution to the IETF
>        community.
>
403,404c421,425
<    6.  The Chair announces the pool of volunteers from which the 10
<        voting volunteers will be randomly selected.
---
>    6.  The Chair announces an enumerated list of the pool of volunteers
>        from which the 10 voting volunteers will be randomly selected.
>
>        The announcement must be made at least one week prior to the
>        earliest time the selection process may begin.
408a430,435
>        The enumerated list should be announced incrementally to ensure
>        the pool of volunteers is unbiased.  The enumeration is immutable
>        such that if a volunteer withdraws or is otherwise ineligible to
>        be selected, that slot is left blank and is skipped during the
>        execution of the selection process.
>
419,421c454,466
<        names will be chosen from the list.  The output of the selection
<        algorithm must depend on random data whose value is not known at
<        the time the list and algorithm are announced.
---
>        names will be chosen from the list.
>
>        The method must depend on random data whose value is not known at
>        the time the list and algorithm are announced and can not be
>        known for at least one week from the time of the announcement.
>
>        As soon as the random data is available it must be possible for
>        anyone with access to it to execute the method and confirm that
>        the correct 10 voting volunteers were selected.
>
>        If a selected volunteer is unable to complete their commitment
>        for any reason, it must be possible to iterate the method and
>        randomly select the next eligible volunteer in turn.
423c468
<        One possible method is described in RFC2777 [1].
---
>        One possible method is described in RFC2777 [2].
650c650,661
<    13.  The nominating committee advises the confirming bodies of their
---
>    13.  A candidate may not be confirmed to serve for both an IESG and
>         an IAB position concurrently.
>
>         A nominee may be a sitting member of either the IESG or the IAB
>         and confirmed for an alternate position in either the IESG or
>         the IAB.
>
>         If the term of the sitting role does not end coincident with the
>         start of the term of the new role, the confirmed candidate must
>         choose exactly one role.
>
>    14.  The nominating committee advises the confirming bodies of their
658c669,677
<    14.  With respect to any action to be taken in the context of
---
>
>
>
> Galvin                    Expires July 24, 2002                [Page 12]
>
> Internet-Draft           IAB and IESG Selection             January 2002
>
>
>    15.  With respect to any action to be taken in the context of
789c845
< 6. Changes From RFC2282
---
> 6. Changes From RFC2727
795,831c851
<    1.  The frame of reference for timeframes was changed from the
<        seasonal "Spring IETF" reference to the less geographic and more
<        temporal "First IETF" reference.
<
<    2.  The terms of the sitting members and their respective confirmed
<        candidates is explicitly permitted to overlap during the First
<        IETF as determined by their mutual agreement.
<
<    3.  Nominating committee members who have served on prior committees
<        are explicitly permitted to advise the current committee on the
<        deliberations and results of the prior committee.
<
<    4.  The role and opportunity for additional advisors and liaisons to
<        the nominating committee was clarified.
<
<    5.  A reference to a documented and accepted fair and unbiased
<        mechanism for randomly selecting nominating committee members
<        from the pool of volunteers was added.
<
<    6.  The option for the prior year's Chair to select a designee to
<        serve as liaison to the current year's committee was clarified to
<        ensure the Chair selected a non-voting liaison from a pool
<        composed of the prior year's voting members and all prior
<        committee Chairs.
<
<    7.  The responsibility and authority for the activities of the
<        nominating committee rests with the committee as a whole, not
<        with the Chair.  The operation of the committee was clarified to
<        require changes in process and the handling of exceptions to be
<        approved by the committee as a whole as opposed to being at the
<        discretion of the Chair.
<
<    8.  The rule that prevented nominating committee members from being
<        eligible to be considered for any open position was clarified to
<        explicitly state that the rule applies from the point in time
<        that the committee membership is announced through the entire
<        term of the current committee.
---
>    1.  A definition for "sitting member" was added.
832a853,871
>    2.  An information retention policy was added requiring the Chair to
>        submit a collection of all information related to the operation
>        of and execution of the responsibilities of the nominating
>        committee to the Internet Society President for long-term
>        storage.  Previous Chairs have done this so the addition is just
>        a formalization of existing practice.
>
>    3.  A timeframe for the appointment of the Chair was added.  The
>        timeframe could always be inferred from the text but to avoid
>        confusion it is now explicitly stated.
>
>    4.  Some explicit guidance was added regarding the timeframe for
>        volunteering to serve on the nominating committee.
>
>    5.  Some explicit guidance was added to the process of selecting the
>        nominating committee members.  Among other things it must be
>        possible to iterate the selection method more than just 10 times
>        to ensure that unavailable or ineligible volunteers can be
>        replaced.
833a873,874
>    6.  It is now explicitly stated that no person may serve on both the
>        IESG and the IAB concurrently.
870a927,930
>       2000 - Avia Doria
>       2001 - Ted T'so
959,962c1015
<    [1]  Eastlake, D., "Publicly Verifiable Nomcom Random Selection", RFC
<         2777, February 2000.
<
<    [2]  Galvin, J., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall
---
>    [1]  Galvin, J., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall
964c1017,1020
<         10, RFC 2282, February 1998.
---
>         10, RFC 2727, February 2000.
>
>    [2]  Eastlake, D., "Publicly Verifiable Nomcom Random Selection", RFC
>         2777, February 2000.

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 13:21:37 -0800

the router connected to verio

psg0#sh ip sdr "Puget Soundless"    
SDR Cache - 46 entries
Session Name: Puget Soundless
  Description: out randy's office window
  Group: 0.0.0.0, ttl: 0, Contiguous allocation: 1
  Lifetime: from 20:30:00 UTC Mar 13 2002 until 20:30:00 UTC Mar 19 2002
  Uptime: 00:35:07, Last Heard: 00:02:14
  Announcement source: 147.28.0.39, destination: 224.2.127.254
  Created by: randy 3225040227 3225040328 IN IP4 rip.psg.com
  Phone number: Randy Bush +1 206 780 0431
  Email: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
  URL: 
  Media: video 59808 RTP/AVP 31
    Media group: 224.2.203.217, ttl: 127

psg0#mtrace 147.28.0.39 224.2.127.254
Type escape sequence to abort.
Mtrace from 147.28.0.39 to 147.28.0.58 via group 224.2.127.254
From source (rip.psg.com) to destination (psg0.psg.com)
Querying full reverse path... 
 0  psg0.psg.com (147.28.0.58)
-1  psg0.psg.com (147.28.0.58) PIM  [147.28.0.0/24]
-2  rip.psg.com (147.28.0.39)

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 13:24:44 -0800

>     Media group: 224.2.203.217, ttl: 127

whoops!  replied to wrong message.  apologies for technical content :-)

randy

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 18:39:49 +0700

Date:        Wed, 13 Mar 2002 15:49:44 -0500 (EST)
    From:        James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | If you agree with these changes do nothing.  If you disagree please say
  | so within the 2 weeks that start today.

I disagree.

Most of what is here is noise, and of no importance, but I cannot
believe that anyone would seriously require ...

  | >    7.  The Chair is responsible for ensuring all information related to
  | >        the selection and confirmation of candidates is archived with the
  | >        Internet Society President upon completion of the nominating
  | >        committee's responsibilities.

The rationale explains that this is just a codification of existing
practice, if that's correct, I am appalled.

My understanding was that communications with the nomcom were supposed
to be confidential.   That should mean that they go no further than the
nomcom - not that they're to be archived for ever, for purposes that
aren't explained.

Please delete this clause, and instead insert a clause requiring that
all records of confidential input to the nomcom process be destroyed
once the nomcom has been would up (which is when the next nomcom takes over,
not when the current one announces its nominations).

By that time, how or why the nomcom reached its decision is largely
irrelevant - it is done, and complete, and the next one will be considering
a new set of problems.

And less important, but still worthy of note ...

  | >    13.  A candidate may not be confirmed to serve for both an IESG and
  | >         an IAB position concurrently.

The IETF chair is a member of both the IESG and the IAB.

and ...

  | >         If the term of the sitting role does not end coincident with the
  | >         start of the term of the new role, the confirmed candidate must
  | >         choose exactly one role.

For how long is that choice expected to last?   Do you intend to say
"must vacate one position" - in which case, say that.   Or, do you mean
"must choose one for the period until the duplication ends" (occasionally
the IAB has decided to switch at the start of the IETF week, where the
IESG always switches at the end of it, as I recall anyway).   Or do you
mean "at any particular instant, one role must be chosen, but a different
one can be chosen 5 seconds later".  What you have written isn't clear.
Nor do I think this is in the slightest bit important to anything (but
better no language than ambiguous language).

kre

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:28:50 +0100

Again, I lack context - it looks as if you've started the discussion before
people have a had a chance to join the list. So please hold on and do
a reset.

I will have a number of things to say about RFC 2727 in Minneapolis,
when the microphones open in the Thursday plenary. They cut quite
deeply into the status quo. 

   Brian

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 
On assignment at the IBM Zurich Laboratory, Switzerland
Board Chairman, Internet Society http://www.isoc.org

----------------------------------------------------------------
The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS.
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.ebxml.org/ob/adm.pl>

---

From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 08:38:54 -0800

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Elz" <[email-masked]>
To: "James M Galvin" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 3:39 AM
Subject: Re: Final Call: accept incorporated comments

>     Message-ID:
<[email-masked]>
>   | >        committee's responsibilities.

They have to. The problem is that the term Archived is undefined. The
constraints regarding who has access and how the information is to be kept.

> nomcom - not that they're to be archived for ever, for purposes that

This is not the FISA tribunal. Its the NomCom.

> not when the current one announces its nominations).

No - I disagree. All records of any types of communcations with anyone in an
official role MUST become part of the record.

> irrelevant - it is done, and complete, and the next one will be
considering

Not as far as accountability goes.

> better no language than ambiguous language).

I want to put term limits on all sitting roles and appoitments. 2-4 years is
certainly enough one would think. The idea is to incourage participation and
by having the same people all the time run the WG's and act as the AD's
there is not as much new blood available for growth. Especially when those
in power resists any changes to the powerbase.

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:48:45 -0500 (EST)

On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Robert Elz wrote:

      | > 7.  The Chair is responsible for ensuring all information
      | >        related to the selection and confirmation of candidates
      | >        is archived with the Internet Society President upon
      | >        completion of the nominating committee's
      | >        responsibilities.

It is my recollection that this is necessary to legally protect all of
the NOMCOM participants, NOMCOM process, IETF, and ISOC.

Perhaps the situation has changed.  Can any past NOMCOM Chairs confirm
my recollection?

Assuming I'm not way off base I don't see a problem with asking the
IETF/ISOC counsel for a recommendation.  Of course I'd like to avoid an
"amateur lawyer" discussion if possible, so let's just get a
recommendation if that's what people want.

Is that what people want?

      | > 13.  A candidate may not be confirmed to serve for both an
      | >         IESG and an IAB position concurrently.

Yes, you could see it that way.  However, it's an ex officio role.  The
IETF Chair is a member of the IESG who serves on the IAB.  Does that
make him a member of the IAB?  I choose to say no.  If others disagree
with me I'll wordsmith to make an exception of the IETF Chair.
Otherwise I'll leave the text as is.

      | >         If the term of the sitting role does not end
      | >         coincident with the start of the term of the new role,
      | >         the confirmed candidate must choose exactly one role.

    What you have written isn't clear.  Nor do I think this is in the
    slightest bit important to anything (but better no language than
    ambiguous language).

Do I correctly understand that you agree in principle with the intent
and object only to its expression?  As long as that's true I'll
wordsmith for the next draft.

Thanks,

Jim

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:51:53 -0500 (EST)

On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

    Again, I lack context - it looks as if you've started the discussion
    before people have a had a chance to join the list. So please hold
    on and do a reset.

The list has been available since January and was announced back in
January.  It appears to be as populated as it's going to get.

I welcome your comments although I do hope you will also transcribe them
for the [email-masked] list.

Jim

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:54:18 -0500 (EST)

On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, todd glassey wrote:

    I want to put term limits on all sitting roles and appoitments. 2-4
    years is certainly enough one would think.

Term limits are a topic for a separate discussion.  Note that it is
already on the agenda.

It would be convenient if you would hold discussion of this issue until
a thread is started to initiate it.

Thanks,

Jim

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 22:26:59 +0100

todd glassey wrote:
...
> there is not as much new blood available for growth. 

I am very strongly against term limits (speaking as somebody who will step
down voluntarily next Wednesday evening). In fact we do *not* have an infinite
pool of talented and available people, and constraining the NomCom's choices
by arbitrary term limits would be a major blunder.

We do need turnover, but not on an arbitrary timescale.

> Especially when those

Nonsense. This isn't about power, it's about getting good people who
are willing to serve.

   Brian

---

From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:38:59 -0800

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Robert Elz" <[email-masked]>; "James M Galvin"
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 1:26 PM
Subject: Re: Final Call: accept incorporated comments

> > I want to put term limits on all sitting roles and appoitments. 2-4
years is
> We do need turnover, but not on an arbitrary timescale.

Then how would you suggest effecting this turnover process.  I am not
adverse to retaing real producers, its just that this is a place where there
needs to be a lot of new blood involved I think. To stagnate in the role is
dangerous to all!.

> Nonsense. This isn't about power, it's about getting good people who

No sorry - It is exactly about power. Its about getting more than the same
two people who are willig to servre in there becuase those that are serving
allow it. If you have any doubts of this go over the key postions within the
WG's, theIESG, and the IAN for the last couple of years and what you will
find is a core grouping of people that ARE this organization and a number of
others that participate on a per-instance basis.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:15:23 -0800

At 10:26 PM 3/14/2002 +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>tI am very strongly against term limits (speaking as somebody who will step

Nomcom can and does decline to renew incumbents as it deems 
appropriate.  Hence we are back to asking what real problem term limits solve?

We need to make changes to fix real and serious problem.  We need to 
rigorously avoid fixing problems that are strictly theorectical.

That said, I'll note that the current nomcom did discuss how "pleasant" 
term limits would be, since it would save nomcom from having to risk 
upsetting an incumbent.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker <mailto:[email-masked]>
TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 21:27:00 -0500 (EST)

Please use this message with this subject line to continue the thread on
term limits.

Thanks!

Jim

    Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:38:59 -0800
    From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
    To: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
    Cc: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>,
         James M Galvin <[email-masked]>,
         [email-masked], [email-masked]
    Subject: Re: Final Call: accept incorporated comments

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Brian E Carpenter" <[email-masked]>
    To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
    Cc: "Robert Elz" <[email-masked]>; "James M Galvin"
    <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
    <[email-masked]>
    Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 1:26 PM
    Subject: Re: Final Call: accept incorporated comments

    years is

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

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 21:36:57 -0500

The proposal offers the mechanism of elapsed time to service a policy
of diversity. Less absurd, better, and also funnier alternatives exist
in the mechanism space that meet this goal.

The term on the idea expired upon utterence.

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 17:01:07 +0700

Date:        Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:48:45 -0500 (EST)
    From:        James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | It is my recollection that this is necessary to legally protect all of
  | the NOMCOM participants, NOMCOM process, IETF, and ISOC.

Some archiving of what happened may be - making records of the "meetings"
that were held, who participated, etc, is most likely required, and certainly
harmless.  That is essentially meeting minutes.

Archiving *everything* that has gone on is impossible - no-one records
all the stray noises that happen during verbal conversations for example.
If you insist on archiving all the electronic communications, which is
what the draft seems to be saying, then you're disadvantaging those who
are unable to make comments to nomcom members in person.

It may be here that the problem I am complaining about is just that your 
wording for what should be archived is imprecise (or perhaps more
accurately, not what you intended).   But if things remain as the are,
I know there are a lot of comments that I would never make to the nomcom
in any electronic form (and recently, I haven't attended the December
IETF for some time, that's the only place I'm ever likely to bump into
a nomcom member, so no electronic comments implies no comments).

  | Assuming I'm not way off base I don't see a problem with asking the
  | IETF/ISOC counsel for a recommendation.  Of course I'd like to avoid an
  | "amateur lawyer" discussion if possible, so let's just get a
  | recommendation if that's what people want.

That's fine - but if that's to be done, let's make sure that we ask
the right question.   There's been way too many times when the IETF
has asked the wrong question, and so gotten an answer which would (I
believe) have been different had the right question been asked.   But
being a legal question, and the answer having come from a lawyer, it
has tended to be be treated as some kind of gospel, and unchallengeable.

Even ignoring the difficulty of getting an accurate response from a
single lawyer (other than seeking judgements from courts, there's not
a lot we can do about that) we have to make sure that we ask questions
that actually give us answers to the questions we need answered.

eg: if here we were to ask "how much should be archive?" the answer would
be "everything that you have" - there's no need to waste time asking if
that is to be the question.   That answer protects us, protects the lawyer,
and so is completely correct.

But, if instead we were to ask "how can we avoid archiving confidential
communications?" then we're asking for the information we need here.  If
the answer comes back "there's no way, they have to be archived", then
so be it.   But that can only be the answer if it is really correct - if
it isn't, we get to sue the lawyer for negligence, and lawyers don't like
that possibility.  So, it is far more likely that we'll get told what
really has to be archived, and what does not, if this is the question asked.

So, before involving lawyers, tell us all exactly what you plan on asking
them, so we can tell if it is worth the bother trying.

  | Yes, you could see it that way.  However, it's an ex officio role.

That just means that the IAB chair is a member because of their (!!)
position.  It has no bearing at all upon their role or status as a
member (other than that when they cease to be IETF chair, they cease to be
an IAB, and IESG, member as well - unless appointed to some other position
of course).

The IETF chair, is, and always has been (in the modern era anyway) an IAB
member.

[on dual IAB/IESG membership]
  | Do I correctly understand that you agree in principle with the intent
  | and object only to its expression?  As long as that's true I'll
  | wordsmith for the next draft.

I think its reasonable to not have people filling dual roles.  I'm not
sure that it is enough of a problem to be worthy of a fix - but nor do I
object if a fix does get included.

But before you go off wordsmithing - why not just tell us which fix to
the problem you actually intended (of the three I postulated, or perhaps
something different) - then we can see if we agree with that particular
method of fixing the problem, before you waste your time carefully
constructing something that no-one else agrees is the appropriate solution.

For this, take an example, let's say that X has been a member of the IESG,
and the nomcom has appointed a new IESG member, and made X a member of the
IAB.   Let's say that the IAB has decided that new members can take over
as from the start of the first IETF meeting (in particular, this may be to
allow retiring members to avoid having to attend the IETF, but that doesn't
matter), whereas the IESG wants a chance to wrap up its work during the IETF
meeting, and so is going to swap over after the IETF.

That would mean, that for the duration of the IETF, X is a member of both
the IESG and IAB - which is what your new text is supposed to avoid happening.

So, it could be, as the text was written, that at any instant, X gets
to choose "now I am speaking as an IAB member", or "now I am speaking as
an AD" - but cannot claim to be both at the same time.   That was one
possible interpretation.

Or it could be that for the IETF week, X has to say "I am going to ignore
my IAB appointment for this week, and continue as an IESG member", or
"I am not going to participate in the IESG for this week, I will be an
IAB member instead".  (And if this one is the one you mean, then you also
need to make it clear if X is allowed to change their (!! again !!) mind
during the period).

Or, it could be that having been appointed to both positions during the same
period, X needs to resign from one.   Resigning from the IESG would be not
much different from choosing not to participate in the IESG for the week,
except that technically, there'd be a casual vacancy that the (previous) nomcom
would have to fill for that week...   But if X wants to finish the week
with the IESG, maybe that beams that X has to resign from the IAB (before
even taking up the position) in order to do so.

So, did you mean one of those three, and if so, which, or something different?

kre

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 17:30:15 +0700

No, I don't think we need term limits.

The "problem" such as it is of appointees serving forever is largely
that it is very hard to find people who are all of qualified, acceptable,
and willing, to take on one of these rules.

If you look, I think you'll find that the "problem" occurs more in the
IESG than the IAB - that's largely because much more is required of IESG
members than IAB members, so it is harder to find qualified willing
candidates, even before the question of whether they're acceptable is
raised.

Brian has indicated that he will have "a number of things to say" which
"cut quite deeply into the status quo" during the plenary at the IETF
meeting.   I won't be there, and I have no idea what he's going to say,
but I have been of the opinion that some radical changes are needed for
a long time now.  When I first suggested this I was told I had no IESG
experience, and so no idea ... then I became IAB liaison to the IESG for
a while, so now I have some (no longer very recent) experience of how
the IESG works - my opinions changed not in the slightest.

That is, the IESG is way overworked, they have been given two separate
jobs to do - unrelated jobs - and ones which actually conflict with
each other.

It is no surprise that it is hard to find people to take on IESG positions,
and hence, that there isn't a lot of churn.

The two jobs are managing the working groups (which includes creating
new ones, terminating old ones, making sure they're making progress, ...)
(and day to day administrative issues, though much of that gets delegated
to the secretariat, as it should).

And validating that the result of the WG process is truly acceptable to
the IETF as a whole - that it meets the standards, and has rough consensus
of the whole IETF.

Those are actually contradictory - as manager of the working group, the AD
is expected to champion that group's work at the management level.  In fact,
IESG rules actually require the AD to vote "yes" to any WG doc from their
WG for the doc to be considered at all (what the rest of the IESG thinks
about a doc is irrelevant unless the AD in question has approved it).
So, to get the doc considered at all, the AD has to say it is fine, and
the IETF has approved it - which puts them in the position of having to
go against the expressed wishes of their working group, or perhaps misrepresent
the actual wishes of the IETF as a whole (and if the AD happens to be
mistaken in their judgement of the latter - believe that the doc isn't
approved by the IETF, and tell the WG "no", then there is no way other than
the appeals process for the rest of the IESG to correct the mistaken AD).

I firmly believe that these two roles should be separated out into two
different bodies.   The new one could be much smaller than the current
IESG (about 7 people would be right I think, perhaps even 5), the IESG
may even decide that will less work to do, it also needs less people
though I'd hope not - as part of the reason for a change like this is
to make it require less effort to participate, reducing the workload is
an aim.

The only real objection to this that I have heard when I have proposed it
in the past, is that it is too hard to find volunteers when we need 25,
requiring 30 or more would be that much harder.

But we really don't know - and unless we try it, can't know.  The work
required and the type of person required, will be quite different for
this new body, so guessing how many volunteers there might be, cannot
really be possible without any experience at all.

My guess is that if this were to happen, then the result would be more
people in management type rolls, hence more opportunity for people to
get involved.  Also a lower workload on those who are involved, and
thus, hopefully a bigger willing candidate pool - which might then allow
more changes to me made with less harm to the I* overall - and without
requiring term limits to force that to happen.

kre

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 07:42:32 -0500

> the appeals process for the rest of the IESG to correct the mistaken

Clarification of how the IESG operates here. It is not a requirement
that the AD for the WG say yes in order to bring a document before the
IESG. It is required that *some* AD say yes (and that AD could be from
another area). This is to avoid a document being brought forward for
which no one is willing to champion it.

In practice, it is very rare that the shepherding AD take the step of
not saying yes. The more common route is for the AD (or co-AD) to say
yes, bring the document before the IESG and then explicitely discuss
the concerns he/she has with the rest of the IESG. A group discussion
then follows with regards to what should be done next.

Thomas

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 07:56:23 -0500

While turnover is important, fixed term limits would be a mistake.  Todd 
seems to be asking for a rule to handle something that is better handled by 
a guideline and nomcom judgement, and we have those two things.  If we want 
to conclude that the nomcom should not apply judgement, then we have a MUCH 
bigger problem.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 09:27 PM 3/14/02 -0500, James M Galvin wrote:
>     > > certainly enough one would think. The idea is to incourage 
> participation
>     and

---

From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 12:14:51 +0000

A thought on the archival of comments to NonCom:

Would it be sufficient/acceptable to archive the comments without the 
identity of the person from whom they came?  (Or just a hash of the 
sender's email address, or... )  Possibly with an affirmation of a 
then-serving member of NonCom that the comments came from a participant in 
the IETF processes.

Like specifications review, I would hope the _content_ of comments carries 
more weight than the identity of their author.

#g

-------------------
Graham Klyne
<[email-masked]>

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 23:28:15 -0500

I share Brian's dislike of term limits.  Both IESG nor IAB are
volunteer jobs that require significant resources.  Few people
can spare the time to serve more than a few years at one
of these jobs, and the few that can do so provide valuable
continuity and community memory.  As for the members that serve
too long for the good of the community, the nomcom has generally
been fairly effective at identifying those.

On balance, term limits would do much more harm than good.
And as for the good they might do, we have better mechanisms 
in place already.

Keith

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 09:23:00 -0500 (EST)

Please use this message, or at least the Subject line of this message,
to continue the thread discussing the archiving of NOMCOM information.

Thanks,

Jim

On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Graham Klyne wrote:

    Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 12:14:51 +0000
    From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
    To: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
    Cc: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>,
         [email-masked], [email-masked]
    Subject: Re: Final Call: accept incorporated comments

    #g

    -------------------
    Graham Klyne
    <[email-masked]>

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 09:42:24 -0500

this is academic, but were my data being collected i'd prefer to opt-in to
the collection practices serving secondary purposes, such as persistent store
 or recipients other than my collegial collaborators. if the problem to be
solved (historical archive, legalistic oversight) isn't the problem posed
(volunteer selection), absent controlling authority (none) this appears to
be collective self-indulgence.

there are more important things to discuss.

---

From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 07:49:44 -0800

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Elz" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 2:30 AM
Subject: Re: DISCUSSION: should there be term limits?

> candidates, even before the question of whether they're acceptable is

Then you need some kind of clean tracking system so that submitters are
guarenteed that their materials recieve or are properly vetted as per the
IETF process.

> the IESG works - my opinions changed not in the slightest.

One thing that is simple is that the IETF needs some real culpability for
what it is and what it does. It wants to have the same type of reception
that the more formal standards organizations have without paying the price
for what it costs to take a Standard though their process models so then the
IETF and IESG become mechanisms to short circuit the value of an ITU like
standard.

The only people this benefits is the owners of the Implementations and the
publishers that have their own value in the industry increased by the number
of Internet Standards they can claim.

> jobs to do - unrelated jobs - and ones which actually conflict with

Which is why the organizational model of the IETF and the IESG is broken.

> to the secretariat, as it should).

No the two jobs are Managing the continuing IPO Stream funneled into the
IESG for approval. This has to do with managing the output of the WG and
nothing else. It says nothing to the abilities of the WG managers either.
And the second is in approving the portions of this IP stream that are ready
to go into the ISOC Portfolio.

The Secretariates job simply is the head traffic cop to make sure that the
IP keeps flowing. The problem that the IETF is choking on is that this IP
must be usable in order to continue the burn justification that has been set
in place and its not always. In fact any protocol that does not have a real
world user should be redirected to the IRTF I think.

> the IETF as a whole - that it meets the standards, and has rough consensus

The ITEF has no mechanism other than the verbal testimony of its Chairs and
Secretariate that things are cool and that the rules are all being followed,
including the intent of the rules. This is the key failing of the current
IETF I think.

> to make it require less effort to participate, reducing the workload is

This might work. At the least it will send a message that a WG Chair is not
a Throne nor is the Secretariates.

> requiring 30 or more would be that much harder.

Then the IETF is too big for its own structure to support and that says it
all. It needs to be cut up into more managable slices.

> requiring term limits to force that to happen.

OK - But otherwise would you support term limits if you could not get this
passsed?

Todd

---

From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 07:37:14 -0800

No problem. Is this for ISOC only or for other organizations up the food
chain as well?

Todd

----- Original Message -----
From: "James M Galvin" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>; "Brian E Carpenter"
<[email-masked]>; "Robert Elz" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 6:27 PM
Subject: DISCUSSION: should there be term limits?

participation
>     > down voluntarily next Wednesday evening). In fact we do *not* have
an
>     infinite

---

From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 07:53:57 -0800

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Narten" <[email-masked]>
To: "Robert Elz" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 4:42 AM
Subject: Re: DISCUSSION: should there be term limits?

> which no one is willing to champion it.

But the whole point is that the Infrastructure (the Management) of the IETF
and the IESG ***MUST*** by this model approve and champion everything that
is submitted. So I have a protocol that challenges a prexisting one, what
happens here? The answer is simple - with todays model, whatever the IESG
members and their WG chair employees want to.

I used the term "employees", becuase to many of the WG Chairs, this activity
is part of their professional life and so it is a job to them and this is
part of the problem to say the least.

> then follows with regards to what should be done next.

But how then is the IESG made accoutnable for what they advance. And isnt
the IESG then respeonsible to some extent in creating and preserving the
value of the I-D's RFC's and Proposed Standards submitted to them for
review?

---

From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 08:00:46 -0800

----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Moore" <[email-masked]>
To: "Brian E Carpenter" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Robert Elz" <[email-masked]>; "James M Galvin"
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 8:28 PM
Subject: Re: Final Call: accept incorporated comments

> continuity and

Garbage - lets plot the last 100 or so members of the management tree and
find out

    1)    how many serve in the same or other positions within the IETF,
IESG, IAB, or ISOC, i.e. who have been elected for life. One ofthe PKIX WG
Chairs has been sitting since PKIX was founded - seven years ago.

    2)    how many of those sitting are involved in commentary stating that
the IETF should remain Status Quo -

I think this diligence will be interesting. Especially when it becomes
evident who is most opposed to change.

> community memory.  As for the members that serve

What mechanisms are you referring to?

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 11:22:40 -0500

its taken a while, but the complaintant has finally surfaced his motivating
issue, to wit:

	... One ofthe PKIX WG

it took under 20 cross-posts to hither-and-yon (and i do hope i'm not on
all the lists comprising h-&-y) to work up to the sticking point. how many
it will take to get to a substantive issue claim and an inapplicability of
2026 process is left as an exercise to the reader.

bored,
brunner

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 09:32:24 -0800

i believe it has one simple goal, responsible retention of
all data in case it needs to be disclosed UNDER COURT ORDER
(or your cultural equivalent) in a lawsuit or criminal
proceeding.  hence, all data, including candidate data,
needs to be kept.

randy

---

From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 08:49:03 -0800

OK say someone finally has it up to wherever they do and they file a lawsuit
against the IETF or the NonCom or any of the other orgs that piggyback off
of this "there will be no records kept" philosophy. What then?

My take is that the courts come in and find that

    1) none of the organizations have any way of proving squat except
through the verbal testimony of the people that will likely be named as
co-defendants to the cause of action. So what you have is a bunch of people
standing around saying "Nuh uh - we didn't do it" and "yes you should
believe us because we all say so!." Sound like Enron to anyone here? Not
that these two situations are the same, but the cries would likely be
similar I think. So I have to ask "Why should we believe them?".

    2) that the Arthur Andersen matter taught us that even auditors lie. And
lawyers too it seems. So why not Standards Group Members? this further
enforces the need for a new method here.

The point is that ***everything*** that the IETF and IESG do must be above
board and should in my opinion be done in the  light of day for all to see.
This effects everything from charters, RFC's on process, and to some extent
whether its reasonable for POISSON to exist at all.

Todd

----- Original Message -----
From: "Graham Klyne" <[email-masked]>
To: "Robert Elz" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "James M Galvin" <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 4:14 AM
Subject: Re: Final Call: accept incorporated comments

---

From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 09:25:48 -0800

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <[email-masked]>
To: "Brian E Carpenter" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 4:15 PM
Subject: Re: Final Call: accept incorporated comments

> >We do need turnover, but not on an arbitrary timescale.

Why not? If there are not bodies to fill the seat then leave it empty. If
they all (the seats) become empty, then shut down the organization for lack
of interest. This is not rocket science.

> appropriate.  Hence we are back to asking what real problem term limits
solve?

Terms limits put in place a method of saying that no one can make a carrer
of sitting there at these seats. No one should either and a number seem to
as of today. That's all, and term limits may not be right.

But if there are no term limits there needs to be a simple method of
recalling someone for cause in this process at all levels and that does not
exist now. What there is today is a convulted set of RFC's from POISSON that
talk about roles and processes and methods in somewhat ambiguous language,
but more over that form a difficult set of organizational bylaws to follow
and an extremely complex system to use.

Is that the price of being involved in a technical standards organization,
that it takes a large amount of energy to be expended?

Look with todays methods, it is a real pain in the posterior to have to
remember that the RFC Rules are in RFC2026 for right now but that it
invalidated RFC1602, and that it is likely that it also will be changing.
Further that the WG Chairs are sort of described in RFC2418 and a couple of
other places, and that there is a new time sensitive document on removing
IESG and WG Chair Members.  The real quesiton is "Why dont we have just a
simple set of process documents that are separate from the rest of the
processes we work on?" and the answer is...

This Architecture of constantly chained together and changing content
documents to a large amount prevents anyone from outside the organization
figuring out what and how the organization works for some time.

> rigorously avoid fixing problems that are strictly theorectical.

There is nothing theoretical about any of my complaints -

> term limits would be, since it would save nomcom from having to risk

OK then, what needs to happen then to NonCom and the other appoinment syle
positions in the organizations?

---

From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 09:03:21 -0800

A most humorous method of pointing the finger back at me - was the intent to
cloud the issue or to just discredit my commentary Eric? But Eric - you are
wrong.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Keith Moore" <[email-masked]>; "Brian E Carpenter"
<[email-masked]>; "Robert Elz" <[email-masked]>; "James M Galvin"
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 8:22 AM
Subject: Re: DISCUSSION: TERM LIMITS - Was Re: Final Call: accept
incorporated comments

> 2026 process is left as an exercise to the reader.

Wrong - Eric if you intend to publicly accuse me of trying to have PKIX
reworked into something that was and is more industry friendly then that is
true. Also that has some level of integrity that is demonsterable after the
fact, that also is true. If you are claiming that this is about replacing
"Steve" just be3cause he has been abusive and refuses to show any of my
comments any space, you are also wrong.

For the record, what this is all about is forcing a stream of fresh blood
into ALL working groups such that NO ONE individual can create a throne out
of a WG Chair or IESG Seat or make a career of serving in the IETF such that
they must be a part of the management team as part of their livelihood.
Afterall this is supposed to be a volenteer organization. Which also says
that if we find that this Fresh Blood is not available then we should close
down those WG's - this is not a kingdom we are building, it is the Intenet.

As to the issues of PKIX  and its being able to prove that it has no
internal agenda, it like all IEFT WG's is incapable of proving anything
about what it did or the process that was gone through to do any of its
standards. It can show an unauthenticated and unreiable copy of most all of
the WG's mail but that is a fraction of what goes on in the operations and
processes or creating a standard and it certainly says nothing to the
commercial interets that fund the continued seating of the individuals that
have made a career of this IETF.

No, we need integrity just as bad as Enron does. Maybe more. And this is put
in place not by the people that are elected but by the processes they
embrace and enforce.

Sorry Eric -

Todd

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 12:46:29 -0500

there are a number of us who feel that in general WGs should last no
longer than 2-3 years.  by that amount of time, most WGs tend to 
get ossified, and the chance that they will produce anything useful
and relevant quickly tends to zero. replacing the chair doesn't 
solve the problem because the whole WG has been headed in the weeds 
for so long that it's hopelessly lost, the WG members are tired,
and even a new chair isn't likely to convince the WG that it needs 
to start over with a different set of assumptions.  

and even though a mercy killing might be best for everyone, often it's 
politically infeasible for IESG folks to kill such groups.

so if we're going to have term limits, perhaps we should have them for 
entire WGs, rather than just for the chairs.

problem is, there are a very few groups that do continue to function
usefully after this amount of time, and we'd need a way to preserve them.

Keith

---

From: John Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 13:31:03 -0500

>proceeding.  hence, all data, including candidate data,

FWIW, and without arguing that candidate data should or should not be 
kept, most responsible document retention policies do _not_ start 
with the assumption that all data should be kept.  Key goals for a 
retention policy should be that rational and reasonable decisions are 
made as to what data should be kept and for how long, the decisions 
about retention are made without reference to a particular existing 
or anticipated legal dispute, and data retention (and destruction) 
policies are thereafter followed unless and until a specific legal 
dispute suggests that document destruction should be suspended.

Perhaps a reasonable middle ground would be that info and comments on 
candidates should be retained as confidential for a period of time 
(perhaps until the conclusion of the next noncom?), and then 
destroyed.

John Morris

N.B.  And no, although "IAL", the above does not constitute legal advice.

--------------------------------------------------
John Morris // CDT // http://www.cdt.org/standards
--------------------------------------------------

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:21:13 -0500

> > Few people
> Garbage 

Excrement!  (is not!  is too!)

> - lets plot the last 100 or so members of the management tree and
> find out

by all means, feel free to gather data.   while you're at it, check 
to see how many former IESG and/or IAB members have ceased contributing 
to IETF  following their terms, due to stress-induced medical problems, 
burnout, and/or frustration with incompetent idiots.

> IESG, IAB, or ISOC, i.e. who have been elected for life. 

heaven forbid that IESG and IAB should be populated with people who 
have experience elsewhere in IETF.  clearly everyone on these bodies 
should be new to the organization.  and heaven forbid that ISOC have 
some people who have technical expertise from participating in IETF.  
not that it's relevant since ISOC does not influence IETF technical 
decisions.

> evident who is most opposed to change.

it's perfectly reasonable for people who understand how the orgainzation
works to be opposed to proposals for internal changes to the workings
of that organization that are made by people who don't understand how the
organization works.  deluded people do not make good architects, for 
either network protocols or organizaitons.

Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:30:10 -0500

> part of the problem to say the least.

I assure you, WG chairs do not act as if they were employees of the ADs.
They're quite aware that the AD has no control over their jobs or salaries,
and they generally feel free to run their groups as they see fit as long
as they don't flagrantly violate process rules.   About all the AD can do 
is fire the chair or disband the group - both of which tend to generate 
political backlash which makes the AD's job harder in the long run.

Keith

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 19:12:00 +0700

Date:        Thu, 14 Mar 2002 08:38:54 -0800
    From:        "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <039001c1cb76$bcd41680$020aff0c@tsg1>

  | They have to. The problem is that the term Archived is undefined. The
  | constraints regarding who has access and how the information is to be kept.

That's part of the problem, but not all of it.   I want the ability to
make comments that aren't to be archived (anywhere, for anyone).

Now it maybe (in fact, probably should be) that off the record comments
that X is a manipulative bastard, and should never be appointed to
anything (which I don't want archived, as X may be a potential employer
one day...) made by me should carry almost no weight at all.   On the
other hand, if the nomcom gets lots of similar comments, that just might
give them a clue that it really would be better not to appoint X.

  | This is not the FISA tribunal. Its the NomCom.

Sorry, the FISA acronym is unknown to me, so I have no idea the
significance of that comment.

  | No - I disagree. All records of any types of communcations with anyone in an
  | official role MUST become part of the record.

Hmm... so you're saying that everyone in any official role must carry around
a tape recorder (with or without "tape") and record all conversations made
to them, and (at least if anything related to the role is conveyed) make that
recording a part of the official record?

A recording is the only way to get an accurate impression (well, as accurate
as it can be) of what happened with spoken communications - transcripts
necessarily omit much of the intonation, etc.

It is a little hard for me to believe that anyone would really conceive
of that as necessary for any kind of organisation - let alone the comparatively
benign one that we're concerned with here.

  | Not as far as accountability goes.

Accountability for what?   The nomcom is asked to use their judgement to
appoint the best people it can find.   All kinds of things (including
past observations from before the nomcom member even considered being
part of the nomcom) influence that decision.   What possible good can it be
to record a subset of those influences?  Because even if we were to insist on
keeping tape recordings (with the recorder running all the time - you never
can tell when a chance remark may be made - even when you're sleeping, your
unconscious mind may pick up on some comment that happens to be made within
your hearing) we'd still never be able to do better than a subset.

kre

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 15:09:02 +0700

Date:        Fri, 15 Mar 2002 09:32:24 -0800
    From:        Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | i believe it has one simple goal, responsible retention of
  | all data in case it needs to be disclosed UNDER COURT ORDER
  | (or your cultural equivalent) in a lawsuit or criminal
  | proceeding.  hence, all data, including candidate data,
  | needs to be kept.

No, that is exactly the reason that most of it should not be kept.
No court can order you to do the impossible - if there are no records,
you can't be compelled to disclose them.  The only way that can attract
a penalty would be if there was some legal requirement that the records
must be kept.

But this is back to the amateur lawyering - to get a real answer, actually
ask a lawyer, but ask the right question - not "how much should we keep?"
but "how can we avoid keeping almost anything?"   If there's some requirement
that some particular records be kept, you'll get told that in answer to
the 2nd question (just like if you were to ask it wrt financial records,
you'd get told that you need to keep X to comply with corporations law,
Y to comply with employee laws, and Z to comply with tax lawa.)

But certainly don't start assuming that we need to keep everything just
so come court in the future can order it to be produced.   That's rubbish.

kre

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 15:20:25 +0700

Date:        Fri, 15 Mar 2002 08:49:03 -0800
    From:        "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <008201c1cc41$516f1720$020aff0c@tsg1>

  | OK say someone finally has it up to wherever they do and they file a lawsuit
  | against the IETF or the NonCom or any of the other orgs that piggyback off
  | of this "there will be no records kept" philosophy. What then?

What then?

  | My take is that the courts come in and find that
  | 
  |     1) none of the organizations have any way of proving squat except
  | through the verbal testimony of the people that will likely be named as
  | co-defendants to the cause of action.

So, nothing can be proven.   Big deal.  That happens lots of times.
Nothing proven, nothing happens.

  | So I have to ask "Why should we believe them?".

No particular reason.   But on the other hand, why would you believe the
person bringing the action?   They obviously feel aggrieved - they have
just as much incentive to lie.   Or more likely, in both cases, to have
a different view of what actually is the truth.

But please note, I'm not suggesting that nothing be archived.   It's
entirely reasonable to archive minutes of the meetings, summaries of
comments made (I don't see any real point archiving the comments themselves
without any attribution, that would simply be worthless, there's no way
to check if the comment was actually made, or just inserted into the record
to justify some decision), and such.   I just see no point keeping precise
records of every confidential comment that is made.  In fact, that would
probably be illegal in some bizarre circumstances - consider the possibility
that a lawyer might get appointed to the nomcom someday, and someone makes
what is a privileged legal communication to that lawyer...

kre

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 15:25:55 +0700

Date:        Sat, 16 Mar 2002 15:09:02 +0700
    From:        Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

Replying to myself... but there's something I realised I forgot
to add when I read this when it came back from the list.

  | If there's some requirement
  | that some particular records be kept, you'll get told that in answer to
  | the 2nd question

Of course, once we get the answer to that - that doesn't mean that's
necessarily all we archive - we can obviously decide that we will keep
more than is absolutely required.   But when we do that, we do so with
the knowledge that we're doing it for our purposes, and so need to justify
that to ourselves, that the purpose is actually worthwhile, and the cost
(and I don't mean disk space costs...) is not too high.

kre

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 02:45:29 -0800

Robert and all,

  What your seem to be advocating here is manipulating historical
information in such a way as to be purposefully inaccurate?  Am
I reading you right here Robert?

> what is a privileged legal communication to that lawyer...

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 02:48:30 -0800

Robert and all,

  Robert, I believe that Randy has a good point here.  In the US
at least there are several federal statutes governing electronic
communications of this nature and that archives must be kept
for at least 7 years if I recall...

Regards,

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 15:58:36 +0700

Date:        Sat, 16 Mar 2002 00:36:12 -0800
    From:        Marshall Rose <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | err, no thanks. no archives, thank you very much.

That's OK too, I also see no reason to make archives - just that I
don't really mind if people decide they want to archive the procedural
part of the process.

But do note that one of the points justifying adding this proposed change
(to make it mandatory that just about everything be archived - archived
encrypted to be more precise) was ...

That was sent only to the [email-masked] list, not to poised.

This was in among a collection of random innocuous changes considered too
minor to debate individually (others include trivia like adding a definition
of what is a sitting member, and changing "Spring IETF" to "First IETF" (of
the calendar year)).

kre

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 02:53:58 -0800

Robert and all,

  Robert, perhaps you should take this discussion off list.  To continue
down the path the you seem to be taking here is likely not to
be favorable to your continuing to maintain your freedom in the
light of 9/11.

  A word to the wise should be sufficient...  ???

Regards,

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 16:10:06 +0700

Date:        Sat, 16 Mar 2002 02:45:29 -0800
    From:        Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | What your seem to be advocating here is manipulating historical
  | information in such a way as to be purposefully inaccurate?  Am
  | I reading you right here Robert?

You are not.   But for some reason, which I seem to have temporarily
forgotten, I fail to be surprised about that.

kre

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 03:14:49 -0800

Robert and all,

  Ok that's good Robert.  >;)

Regards,

---

From: Marshall Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 00:36:12 -0800

> to justify some decision), and such.

err, no thanks. no archives, thank you very much.

the existing system isn't perfect, but it works okay. there are lots of checks-and-balances to promote things like continuity, evolution, stability, innovation, candor, and privacy. all of these serve a common good.

do not go screwing with the something that works okay because of what a lawyer may do some day. fine-tuning is another matter, but so far none of the "improvements" i've seen suggested will make things work better. quite the reverse.

/mtr

---

From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 08:26:57 -0800

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Elz" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 12:20 AM
Subject: Re: DISCUSSION: archiving of NOMCOM information

> a different view of what actually is the truth.

Then how is this process comparable to that of any other standards
organization? The answer is simple. They are not.

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 00:03:53 +0700

Date:        Sat, 16 Mar 2002 08:26:57 -0800
    From:        "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <039601c1cd07$65a323a0$020aff0c@tsg1>

  | Then how is this process comparable to that of any other standards
  | organization? The answer is simple. They are not.

And exactly why is this question relevant?   The IETF has never set out
to copy other organisations, or not that I'm aware of.  Things always
have been different.

But which other standards organisation is it that records every utterance
anyone makes, including those expressly made "in confidence" ?

I recall attending a meeting of a different org once (a while ago now), and
I'm pretty sure I made a comment to one of the other attendees that all that
was being done was nonsense, both technically, and the way it was being
managed.

Is that comment recorded somewhere for posterity?   I didn't attend many
of those meetings, they weren't worth the effort - but the other guy kept
on going (for at least a while after that) I believe.   It is possible
(for all I know) that my comment in the aisle had some long lasting impact
upon the work produced.   Surely it is on record somewhere...

Or perhaps not, after all.

kre

---

From: Marshall Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 10:59:13 -0800

> don't really mind if people decide they want to archive the procedural

i think it is worthwhile to figure out what problems there are, and whether they're worth solving, before solutions start popping up.

i've yet to see a rationale exposition for "the documentation problem".

simpler is almost always better than "not simpler".

improvements rarely make things better...

but, i'm mostly preaching to choir...

> of what is a sitting member, and changing "Spring IETF" to "First IETF" (of

okie-dokie.

/mtr

---

From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 18:09:34 -0800

If you constrain the organization to being unaccountable then how can its
standards carry any weight.

How could an organization like ISO or otherwise rely on one from a foreign
org with no where near their own process or requirements.

T.

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 14:48:26 +0700

Date:        Fri, 15 Mar 2002 07:49:44 -0800
    From:        "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <000f01c1cc39$08109070$020aff0c@tsg1>

  | Then you need some kind of clean tracking system so that submitters are
  | guarenteed that their materials recieve or are properly vetted as per the
  | IETF process.

Or we need to trust that the random nature of the selection of the
nomcom makes it almost impossible for anyone to manipulate the process
such that comments aren't properly vetted.

While I don't agree with all the appointments the various nomcoms have
made, I also don't believe that there's some grand conspiracy out there
just to manipulate things to defeat my wishes. 

  | One thing that is simple is that the IETF needs some real culpability for
  | what it is and what it does.

About all the IETF does is publish RFCs (it also books some hotel space
three times a year, but I doubt anyone except a few hotel operators cares
a lot about that).   Whether anyone takes any notice of what is in an RFC
is entirely their choice.

  | The ITEF has no mechanism other than the verbal testimony of its Chairs and
  | Secretariate that things are cool and that the rules are all being followed,
  | including the intent of the rules.

And then there are also all the rest of us out there watching, and making
our opinions known whenever necessary.   The IETF management has done lots
of things that I don't much agree with - most times, the rest of the IETF
finds out about it fairly soon after...   Occasionally that has resulted in
things changing, in many cases, it seems that most of the rest of the
community don't agree with me.   That's life.

  | OK - But otherwise would you support term limits if you could not get this
  | passsed?

No, because that wouldn't solve the real problem, in fact, it wouldn't solve
any real problem.

kre

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 18:34:43 +0100

todd glassey wrote:
...
> Why not? 

Asked and answered several times already.

   Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 18:42:29 +0100

Er, we are discussing term limits for NomCom appointments, not WG chairs.

So far, I've seen many message in favour of term limits, but all from
one person, and everyone else against them. So aren't we done on this?

   Brian

---

From: Marshall Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 19:24:35 -0800

> org with no where near their own process or requirements.

todd - you just don't "get" the IETF.

who cares what the ISO thinks? not us. if they want to do business with us, great, but we aren't going to substantively change on their account.

thus far, all of your proposals are based on the problems that *you* perceive in the IETF. here's a bulletin: they aren't problems with the IETF, you think they're problems because the IETF isn't conforming to your model.

so, rather than try to change us, why don't you start a new standards organization that conforms to your model, and then come back in five years and we can compare notes.

at this point vernon normally points out that the guys with a problem are the guys who don't have "street cred" (e.g., they haven't published any rfcs, they haven't chaired any working groups, they haven't run any areas, etc). i guess vernon is on vacation...

/mtr

---

From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 07:48:00 -0800

Robert - sorry it took so long to answer - I have been too busy to write. My
responses inline below.

Todd

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Elz" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 11:48 PM
Subject: Re: DISCUSSION: should there be term limits?

> such that comments aren't properly vetted.

The real meat on this concept is what constitutes vetting and what is the
minimum number of unique participants that must there be in athe vetting
process to qualify it. For instance if a single company sent 5 people into a
WG to push a particular protocol, and those people were subsidized to submit
that protocol and chat it up in the mailing list, that would seem to have
gotten as much vetting as many of the protocols the IETF passes through it
get.

> just to manipulate things to defeat my wishes.

The problem is that with the totality of how and where the records of what
is being done on a daily basis are being maintained is just not being
addressed. All the organizations to one extent or another depend on
volunteer and external services to provide their "snapshot of running
history" and the problem is that this is just not enough.

> is entirely their choice.

Except that these are the basis of all protocols used for all LAN and WAN
networks on this planet. And many other application sets as well. Each
standard has some level of commercial value and competitive stamdards coud
do tortuous damage to one another in todays system, especially since there
are no absolute recording processes.

> community don't agree with me.   That's life.

So this becoemsa question of who the IETF serves? the members, the financial
sources of support for those that attend?, or just corporate and private
interests looking to forward their portfolio agendas?

The ietf should serve the process as a standards group and nothing more. At
this point the IETF is a tool of the IESG to deflect some of the heat for
any of their arbitrary decisions and to be used by what appears to be a
closed and recirculating manatgement team.

Bluntly the who thing from ISOC downward need to be restructured and
especially ICANN I think.

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 17:38:55 +0700

I agree with all your say - when I first raised this issue from
the "last call on editorial updates", retaining the info until the
end of the nomcom (which isn't when the announcements are made, as
I hope everyone here is aware) was what I suggested.

The logistics of where the records should be kept until the nomcom is
disbanded aren't too important to me - though I think only the nomcom
should have access (so data that is encrypted and placed somewhere should
have its key retained with the nomcom)

kre

---

From: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 23:25:09 -0500

My understanding for why the nomcom information was archived was for
the protection of the nomcom members.  The basic issue is this: once
the nomcom is finished with its primary responsibility after the first
IETF meeting of the year, (and my, does it feel good!) they are most
likely done unless someone on IESG or the IAB does something very
uncharitable and dies on us (as happened most recently), or otherwise
creates an opening.  At that point, the nomcom has an unreasonably
short time to find a replacement sucker^H^H^H^H^H^H self-sacrificing
individual willing to volunteer large amounts of his/her professional
life.

If all of the materials collecting during the first three months of
the nomcom were discarded, then there would be no possibility for the
nomcom to be able to do its job in the required time-frame.  However,
if the nomcom members were to hold onto the information, then they
might get sued to release that information, and the expenses for
defending the lawsuit and having lawyers submit motions to keep the
information out of discovery are huge and subtantial.

So, it is for the protection of the nomcom members that all of the
information is archived, and then sent to some organization (which I
believe is currently the secretariat, not the ISOC president, but
whatever), that has enough sharks w/ Armani suits to at least slow
down legal attempts to breach the confidentiaility of the nomcom
records.  After that the records are handed over to the secretariat,
all other copies of the information are destroyed, for the nomcom
members' protection.

Then, if nomcom needs to be activated to refill a position, the
information is sent back to the nomcom chair, who then repopulates the
mailing list archives and resends the pertinent information to the
nomcom members so they can do their job.

This is the only reason that I know of that the information is
archived.  If that is the case, then the retention interval of the
information should be one year --- once the current year's nomcom is
finished, and a new nomcom is appointed, there's no reason to keep the
old records around any longer.  Also, one could argue that perhaps the
ISOC trustee should not have the key to the encrypted archive, but
rather that the key be split using secret-sharing techinques, and sent
to the IAB and IESG chair, plus three other randomly chosen IAB/IESG
members, such that 3 out of the 5 shares must be available in order to
reconstitute the encryption key.

This preserves the confidentiality of the nomcom archives, while still
protecting nomcom members from potentially huge legal fees.
(Remember, the ISOC gives legal insurance to IAB, IESG, and WG chairs,
but not to nomcom members.)

If the are any other reasons why the nomcom information should be
archived for longer than year, I don't know what they might be, and
those who would argue for a longer retention period should state why
they believe it should be necessary.

						- Ted

---

From: Matt Holdrege <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 07:10:15 -0800

But Ted, we all have our own email storage. All you have to do is encourage 
nomcom members to keep nomcom email on their laptops til the year is over. 
That way each member has control and can delete it whenever they want if 
they are worried about lawsuits. In fact, this is what happens already. I 
know I still have all the nomcom emails from this year and I know certain 
other nomcom members have the same.

So we absolutely do not need to send off an archive to the secretariat or 
any other external host.

---

From: Bill Woodcock <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:01:35 -0800 (PST)

On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Theodore Tso wrote:
    > the protection of the nomcom members.
    > If the nomcom members were to hold onto the information, then they

This brings up the issue that the Nomcom members are currently not insured
against legal expenses by the IETF's policy, unlike all other IETF
functions/roles.  When the ISOC-funded policy goes away, it would be good
to remedy this.

                                -Bill

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 08:34:31 -0500

--On Thursday, 28 March, 2002 09:01 -0800 Bill Woodcock
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> This brings up the issue that the Nomcom members are currently
> not insured against legal expenses by the IETF's policy,
> unlike all other IETF functions/roles.  When the ISOC-funded
> policy goes away, it would be good to remedy this.

Bill, what risks do you think the Nomcom members need to be
insured against?  The coverage for the IAB/IESG/WG Chairs is
intended to protect against liabilities incurred in the
standards process.  No matter how careful we are, claims can
arise about those things and may need defending.  But it isn't
obvious to me why Nomcom members would need similar protection
and against what.

I also can't parse your last sentence, as I am not aware of any
plan to make the ISOC-funded policy go away.

       john

---

From: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 17:31:31 -0500

> other nomcom members have the same.

Actually, it's supposed to be the exact reverse, from what I've been
told --- my understanding is that nomcom members are encouraged to
delete all of their nomcom-related e-mail and files for their own
protection, and that encrypted records would be sent off to the
secretariat for that purpose.

Of course, no one can't *force* you to delete your nomcom-related
e-mails, but I would consider it a wise thing to do.

> So we absolutely do not need to send off an archive to the secretariat or 

Well, we do, if we don't want to depend on nomcom members deciding to
risk retaining their nomcom-related records.

						- Ted

---

From: Bill Woodcock <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 11:47:43 -0800 (PST)

> insured against?

Principally against suits accusing unfairness.  This wasn't so much my
point as one that came up a couple of times during the nomcom I served on,
that I thought I'd throw back into the pot, as long as decisions were
being made.

    > I am not aware of any

Presumably the policy won't go away, but presumably the ISOC will,
relatively soon, due to lack of funding.  At such point, the policy will
need to be redone, with some other legal entity as the signatory.  Seems
an apt time to reevaluate what's needed in the policy.

                                -Bill

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:38:52 -0500

--On Friday, 29 March, 2002 11:47 -0800 Bill Woodcock
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>     > Bill, what risks do you think the Nomcom members need to
> be     > insured against?
> 
> Principally against suits accusing unfairness.  This wasn't so
> much my point as one that came up a couple of times during the
> nomcom I served on, that I thought I'd throw back into the
> pot, as long as decisions were being made.

Hmm.  I have a lot of trouble believing in that as a risk.
First of all, if someone really, really, wants to be on the IAB
or IESG --as distinct from being willing to serve if that is in
the best interests of the IETF-- that should, arguably, exclude
them on the basis of insanity or at least stupidity, neither of
which would constitute "unfairness".  Even ignoring that,
getting such a position by suing would so damage someone's
credibility in the community as to lead, I would think, to an
almost-instant recall action, which wouldn't be "unfair" either.

Conversely, if a nomcom (or some of its members) were really
considering behaving in some unfair and inappropriate way, it
would not appear to me to be in  the interest of the community
to encourage that in any way, including by spreading an
insurance umbrella over the behavior.  

In any event, it seems to me that the real protection against
accusations of unfair behavior is to re-hone the confidentiality
rules to be sure that the process and procedures followed by the
nomcom are as open and public as possible consistent with
protection of candidates and privacy of comments to the nomcom
about candidates.  Especially to the extent that people are
worried about accusiations of unfair behavior, I would think
that we would want to make nomcom decisions about procedures
used to collect input, review and evaluate it, and then vote on
candidates, public (again, to the extent that can be done
without compromising candidate confidentiality).

> Presumably the policy won't go away, but presumably the ISOC
> will, relatively soon, due to lack of funding.  At such point,
> the policy will need to be redone, with some other legal
> entity as the signatory.  Seems an apt time to reevaluate
> what's needed in the policy.

If ISOC collapses --something I would not predict, especially
"relatively soon", although I always believe that thinking
through contingencies is useful-- the details of insurance
policies are likely to turn out to be the least of the
consequent problems, even in the nomcom area.  E.g., if ISOC
were to abruptly disappear, we have no procedure for getting a
nomcom chair appointed, much less for approving an IAB slate.

      john

---

From: Bill Woodcock <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 13:02:28 -0800 (PST)

> > Principally against suits accusing unfairness.

    > Hmm.  I have a lot of trouble believing in that as a risk.

Okay.  Again, it wasn't my point, and not anything I have strong feelings
about.  Just relating it, since it had caused some folks worry at the
time.  I agree with the points you made, as a matter of practicality.

    > "relatively soon"...

Ah.  Then I was misinformed, and am very happy to stand corrected.

                                -Bill

---

From: Matt Holdrege <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 13:10:10 -0800

>risk retaining their nomcom-related records.

If we do depend on the nomcom members (as we already depend so much on 
them), then the IETF and ISOC are not at risk and we have a whole lot less 
to worry about. Nomcom members can dodge bullets much easier than ISOC can.

---

From: Matt Holdrege <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 13:33:40 -0800

At 01:32 PM 3/29/2002, Theodore Tso wrote:
>On Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 01:10:10PM -0800, Matt Holdrege wrote:
>Um, the ISOC has legal insurance and attorneies on retainer.  I sure
>don't, at least not for my nomcom-related activities....

Yes but you do have control of your PC don't you? You can delete the files 
at the push of a button, right? You can't deny you are a member of nomcom 
so they can call you to task anytime they want to. But they cannot 
necessarily get any evidence from you.

---

From: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 16:32:45 -0500

- Ted

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 16:37:38 -0800

> Hmm.  I have a lot of trouble believing in that as a risk.

maybe i am too paranoid, but i can see it as a risk.  and, as the
cost of reasonable record retention is trivial, i wonder why we
are spending so much time on the issue.  what is the downside of
escrowed record retention?

randy