Subject: Re: NomCom 2012-2013: Third Call for Volunteers

From: Samuel Weiler <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 18:59:30 -0400 (EDT)

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012, NomCom Chair wrote:

> I am pleased to report at this time we have 98 qualified individuals 
> who have generously volunteer their time to serve on this year's 
> NomCom.

Sorting that list by affiliation and counting the number of names from 
each affiliation, the volunteer list as of Monday included:

16 Huawai
15 Cisco
13 Ericsson
9 Juniper
5 ZTE
4 Nokia/Siemens (debatable; see details)
3 Alcatel-Lucent
3 BBN
3 China Mobile
3 CNNIC
2 Time Warner Cable
1 (22)
Total: 98

Observations: the top four companies on this list have contributed 
more than half of the NomCom volunteers.  The top three have 
contributed twice as many (44) as all of the entities that 
contributed only one (22).

Opinion: the NomCom would benefit from having many "independent" 
members.  While that could happen (yay, randomness), the odds here 
don't look great.

-- Sam

Footnote: I wasn't entirely sure which of the Nokia and Seimens 
entries (below) to combine.  I erred on the side of combining all of 
them, knowing that there's likely a strong argument to be made for 
some other treatment.  In any case, I don't think it will make much of 
a difference to the analysis.
Teemu Savolainen, Nokia
Jouni Korhonen, Nokia Siemens Networks
Mehmet Ersue, Nokia Siemens Networks
Andrew Hutton, Siemens Enterprise Communications

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 19:07:03 -0400

(1) Your figures show that it is more likely that a noncom member will
be selected from an affiliation listed by only one volunteer then that
they are to be selected from any specific affiliation listed by more
than one volunteer.

(2) Because of appearances of biased voting membership in some early
noncoms, the rules were changes to prohibit more than two voting
members with the same affiliation.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Samuel Weiler <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> I am pleased to report at this time we have 98 qualified individuals who
>> have generously volunteer their time to serve on this year's NomCom.
>
> Sorting that list by affiliation and counting the number of names from each
> affiliation, the volunteer list as of Monday included:
>
> 16 Huawai
> 15 Cisco
> 13 Ericsson
> 9 Juniper
> 5 ZTE
> Observations: the top four companies on this list have contributed more than
> half of the NomCom volunteers.  The top three have contributed twice as many
> (44) as all of the entities that contributed only one (22).
>
> Opinion: the NomCom would benefit from having many "independent" members.
> While that could happen (yay, randomness), the odds here don't look great.
>
> -- Sam
>
>
> Footnote: I wasn't entirely sure which of the Nokia and Seimens entries
> (below) to combine.  I erred on the side of combining all of them, knowing
> that there's likely a strong argument to be made for some other treatment.
> In any case, I don't think it will make much of a difference to the
> analysis.
> Teemu Savolainen, Nokia
>

---

From: "Perala, Timo (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 02:24:54 +0300

Sam,

Related to your footnote: Nokia is different from Nokia Siemens Networks
is different from Siemens. So, rather than grouping them all together
more appropriate (and correct) would be to treat them separately.

cheers
Timo

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
ext Donald Eastlake
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 2:07 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: NomCom 2012-2013: Third Call for Volunteers

Thanks,
Donald

>> I am pleased to report at this time we have 98 qualified individuals
who
> Sorting that list by affiliation and counting the number of names from
each
> Observations: the top four companies on this list have contributed
more than
> Opinion: the NomCom would benefit from having many "independent"
members.
> Footnote: I wasn't entirely sure which of the Nokia and Seimens
entries

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 17:17:36 -0700

Hi Sam,
At 03:59 PM 8/1/2012, Samuel Weiler wrote:
>Sorting that list by affiliation and counting the number of names 
>from each affiliation, the volunteer list as of Monday included:
>
>16 Huawai
>15 Cisco
>13 Ericsson
>9 Juniper
>5 ZTE

Cisco has more authors than Huawei.  It's interesting to see four 
companies making up more than 44% of the volunteer list.  It was 
pointed out that there cannot be more than two NomCom members with 
the same affiliation.  There isn't anyone with a Google or Microsoft 
affiliation.  There is a person with an ICANN affiliation and one 
with an Internet Society affiliation (see discussion about 
draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility).

The odds of volunteers from companies at the top of the list being 
selected as a NomCom member is not that low.  One could look at 
NomCom as an exercise in randomness or one could look at it as an 
exercise in "let the market decide".

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 04:13:43 +0200

2 aug 2012 kl. 00:59 skrev Samuel Weiler <[email-masked]>:

> Sorting that list by affiliation and counting the number of names from each affiliation, the volunteer list as of Monday included:
> 
> 16 Huawai
> 15 Cisco
> 13 Ericsson
> 9 Juniper
> 5 ZTE
> Observations: the top four companies on this list have contributed more than half of the NomCom volunteers.  The top three have contributed twice as many (44) as all of the entities that contributed only one (22).

A good thing is that the "one" category is still the largest.

Without arguing against you regarding this being something one should keep an eye on.

   Patrik

---

From: Yoshihiro Ohba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 14:10:51 +0900

What is the exact definition of "affiliation" in IETF?

If a consultant who runs his/her own consulting company X is paid by 
his/her customer company Y for his/her IETF activities including 
NOMCOM activity, then what is his/her affiliation?

Yoshihiro Ohba

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 22:24:17 -0700

I reported both when I volunteered.  

Sent from my iPad

On Aug 1, 2012, at 22:10, Yoshihiro Ohba <[email-masked]> wrote:

> If a consultant who runs his/her own consulting company X is paid by his/her customer company Y for his/her IETF activities including NOMCOM activity, then what is his/her affiliation?
> 
> Yoshihiro Ohba
>

---

From: Samuel Weiler <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 01:37:43 -0400 (EDT)

> What is the exact definition of "affiliation" in IETF?

Quoting from RFC3777:

"Rather than defining precise rules for how to define "affiliation", 
the IETF community depends on the honor and integrity of the 
participants to make the process work."

As a community, we recognize that this could easily be gamed, and we 
expect each other to behave reasonably.

> NOMCOM activity, then what is his/her affiliation?

As a first pass answer, it's whatever the consultant would normally 
show on a meeting registration badge.  Typically, I'd expect X.  But 
the degree of funding is as extreme as you describe, it might still be 
appropriate to step aside if two persons from Y are also chosen (or 
ask one of them to step aside).

-- Sam

---

From: t.p. <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 09:32:13 +0100

----- Original Message -----
From: "Samuel Weiler" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 11:59 PM
> contributed only one (22).

Looks like a fairly accurate reflection of the driving force behind most
of the I-Ds I see, in Areas such as Routing and Ops.

Whether NomCom should reflect the forces behind those I-Ds I am less
clear about.

Tom Petch

---

From: Yoshihiro Ohba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 23:36:39 +0900

Probably nothing can be perfect when defining "affiliation", but I
think some definition can help reducing hidden conflict of interests.

Here is an example in other standards body:
http://standards.ieee.org/faqs/affiliation.html

Yoshihiro Ohba

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 07:50:55 -0700

> http://standards.ieee.org/faqs/affiliation.html

thank you for reminding me of where i do not want to go.

the ietf culture presumes the players are adults.  yes, this has
occasional failures, perhaps i am one.  but better that than massive
rules which do not actually stop the really egregious abuses.

a 40 page contract drawn up by the lawyers does not ensure a meeting
of the minds, let alone the hearts.

randy