Subject: VS: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 09:47:38 -0300

+1

-------- Alkuperäinen viesti --------
Aihe: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
Lähettäjä: "Eggert, Lars" <[email-masked]>
Vastaanottaja: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Kopio: IAB <[email-masked]>,IETF <[email-masked]>

On Aug 11, 2012, at 1:55, Bob Hinden <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I support the IETF and IAB chairs signing document.

+1

(I'd even co-sign for the IRTF, but I think that isn't really appropriate in this case.)

Lars

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 07:41:09 -0700

> Lähettäjä: "Eggert, Lars" <[email-masked]>
...
> (I'd even co-sign for the IRTF, but I think that isn't really appropriate in this case.)

The "for the IRTF" underscores a possible concern in the current 
situation.

The perception will certainly be that the IAB and IETF chairs' signature 
do represent the support of the IETF.

But we are a consensus-oriented group and we have not had anything that 
even hints at a consensus-oriented process to authorize that representation.

d/

-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 17:13:17 +0200

On Aug 11, 2012, at 16:41, Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:

> consensus-oriented process

Sometimes, though, you have to act.

While a consensus-oriented process*) document could certainly be used to improve (or deteriorate) the document by a couple more epsilons, I agree with Randy Bush: Signing it now is a no-brainer.

Grüße, Carsten

*) Well there was a call for comments, and it already supplied the first such set of epsilons.  
That may have to do when time is of the essence.

(That's also what you choose your leadership for.  
If we don't like the outcome, we can always decide not to re-elect Russ :-)

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 08:20:06 -0700

On 8/11/2012 8:13 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> While a consensus-oriented process*) document could certainly be used
> to improve (or deteriorate) the document by a couple more epsilons, I
> agree with Randy Bush: Signing it now is a no-brainer.

I wasn't commenting on document editing.  (It actually needs a serious 
editing pass, but I understand that the current situation mitigates 
against pursuing that.)

My point was that we have a process for assessing IETF support and it's 
not being used.  Something quite different is being used.

I'm not arguing against the document, but merely noting that an 
implication of IETF community support is going to be present, but in the 
absence of our having followed the process that makes that (formally) 
correct.

Bureaucracy sucks.  It's a hassle. It's always more appealing to just do 
whatever we feel like that feels reasonable because we have good intent.

d/

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 16:20:32 +0100

On 11/08/2012 15:41, Dave Crocker wrote:
> The "for the IRTF" underscores a possible concern in the current situation.
> 

Dave,

I wasn't in Vancouver, nor even listening to the audio stream, so I can't
comment on what happened there. However, the discussion here (e.g. on
the "ITU-T Dubai Meeting" thread) and the previous opportunity to comment
on the proposed statement, which has resulted in changes, strikes me as
an open discussion of the kind we expect in the IETF. When the goal
is agreed wording between several organisations, and it seems clear
that the two chairs are representing the ethos of the IETF in the
discussion, I don't see how we can reasonably ask for more in the
time available.

    Brian

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 08:20:30 -0700

d/

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 18:41:05 +0100

On 11/08/2012 16:20, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> When the goal is agreed wording between several organisations, and it 
> seems clear that the two chairs are representing the ethos of the IETF 
> in the discussion, I don't see how we can reasonably ask for more in 
> the time available. Brian 

+1

Stewart

-- 
For corporate legal information go to:

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html

---

From: Glen Zorn <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 06:01:39 +0700

> even hints at a consensus-oriented process to authorize that representation.

My thoughts exactly.

---

From: Glen Zorn <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 09:06:04 +0700

> If we don't like the outcome, we can always decide not to re-elect Russ :-)

Did the IETF morph into a representative democracy while I was sleeping?
Last time I checked, Russ was the chair of a committee of managers,
chosen by a random selection of proles who may or may not have taken the
opinions of others into account in that selection.  He was not
"elected", nor does he "speak for the IETF"; ditto for Bernard.  If they
wish to sign this statement (with which I, by and large, agree, BTW),
that's fine.  If they wish to list all their titles (IETF-bestowed &
otherwise), degrees, etc., that's fine, too, but not if the intent is to
imply that they somehow "represent" me or any one other than themselves.
If support by IETF members at-large is to be signified, then an online
petition of some sort would be a much better idea & much less deceptive.

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 20:49:26 -0700

At 08:20 11-08-2012, Dave Crocker wrote:
>My point was that we have a process for assessing IETF support and 
>it's not being used.  Something quite different is being used.
>
>implication of IETF community support is going to be present, but in 
>the absence of our having followed the process that makes that 
>(formally) correct.

In a message at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg74519.html the 
IETF Chair mentioned that:

   "The IETF Chair and the IAB Chair intend to sign the Affirmation in the
    next few weeks. Please send strong objections to the iab at iab.org
    and the ietf at ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-08-24."

The subject line of that message says "Last Call".   The wording used 
(send strong objections) is uncommon.  The period for accepting 
comments is two weeks.  There has been comments and some 
noise.  Neither the IETF Chair nor the three Area Directors who 
commented attempted to stifle the noise.  In some other community you 
can expect a reminder about AUP ( 
http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2012-August/025789.html ).

   "Recognising that moral issues are fundamental to the utility and
    success of protocols designed within the IETF, and that simply making
    a wishy-washy liberal-minded statement does not necessarily provide
    adequate guarantees of a correct and proper outcome for society,"

the IETF proposes to issue a press release.

>Bureaucracy sucks.  It's a hassle. It's always more appealing to 
>just do whatever we feel like that feels reasonable because we have 
>good intent.

Yes.

At 19:06 11-08-2012, Glen Zorn wrote:
>any one other than themselves.  If support by IETF members at-large 
>is to be signified, then an online petition of some sort would be a 
>much better idea & much less deceptive.

RFCs, for example RFC 1984, have been used for such statements.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Glen Zorn <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 13:13:22 +0700

On Sat, 2012-08-11 at 20:49 -0700, SM wrote:

...

> RFCs, for example RFC 1984, have been used for such statements.

Sorry, I don't get your point.  The referenced RFC says

   The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the Internet Engineering
   Steering Group (IESG), the bodies which oversee architecture and
   standards for the Internet, are concerned by the need for increased
   protection of international commercial transactions on the Internet,
   and by the need to offer all Internet users an adequate degree of
   privacy.

Presumably, the IAB & IESG came to this concern through consensus and
the document expresses the consensus (along with the rather typical
sense of exaggerated self-importance ;-))
of those bodies.  It pointedly does not claim to represent the opinion
of the entire IETF, but neither does the document under discussion
(unless the royal usage of "we" is intended) and that's how it should
be.

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 02:57:14 -0700

Hi Glen,
>Sorry, I don't get your point.  The referenced RFC says

It was the Spring of 1995.  The place was known as Danvers.  That 
meeting is remembered because of the Danvers Doctrine.

>Presumably, the IAB & IESG came to this concern through consensus 
>and the document expresses the consensus (along with the rather 
>typical sense of exaggerated self-

Yes.

>importance
>;-)
>)
>of those bodies.  It pointedly does not claim to represent the 
>opinion of the entire IETF, but neither does the document under 
>discussion (unless the royal usage of "we" is intended) and that's 
>how it should be.

Over the years the IAB and IETF have expressed a joint opinion on an 
issue through a RFC.    That RFC is one of the significant ones as it 
dealt with the question of "export" grade security which was on the 
political agenda of the day.  Nowadays the IETF uses BCPs to express 
IETF Consensus.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 11:02:33 -0400

> My point was that we have a process for assessing IETF support and it's not
> being used.  Something quite different is being used.

I'm not so sure.

It's true that this was not put into an Internet Draft.  Apart from
that, we seem to be doing the right thing:
- The IAB Chair announced the text and the intent to sign it on 1 Aug.
 He asked for comments.
- The IETF Chair announced updated text on 4 Aug, based on comments received.
- The IETF Chair made a last call on 10 Aug, running through 24 Aug,
noting that three organizations are approving this text (and that one
has already).  He asked for objections.
- A discussion (this) ensued, which has resulted in a great deal of
support for the signing, no objections to the document, and two
objections on process grounds.

I presume that the IETF Chair will evaluate rough consensus on or
after 24 Aug.  As I see it now, consensus appears to be strongly in
favour of their signing it, with a valid process objection that has to
be addressed.

By way of addressing that, this IETF participant thinks that our
consensus process has essentially been followed.  Text was publicly
posted, comments were incorporated, a last call was issued, and
responses are being considered.  In the end, we seem likely to have
IETF consensus that the IAB Chair and the IETF Chair sign the
document.

The parts that are not entirely as usual are (1) that the text was
publicly posted, but not in an Internet Draft, and (2) that the
community's ability to tweak the text has been limited.  That said,
both of those aspects are part of the public last call, and they have
gotten very limited objection.

Can you tell us where the above process fails in representing the
rough consensus of the IETF community, with respect to how we normally
express such consensus?  Can you tell us how what we're doing here is
"quite different" to our usual process (that is, "quite" different, as
opposed to very slightly different, with the difference having been
explained and due to the requirements of external interactions)?

Barry

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:50:10 -0700

On 8/12/2012 8:02 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> that, we seem to be doing the right thing: - The IAB Chair announced
> the text and the intent to sign it on 1 Aug.

Two weeks is normal process for spontaneous consensus calls?

When did the community approve that change in process?

> He asked for comments.

No he didn't:

      "Please send strong objections..."

This asserts a forceful bias against general comments and criticisms by
establishing a very high threshhold for relevance.  While no, no one is
prevented from other kinds of postings, the bias is nonetheless established.

> objections on process grounds.

Note that he didn't ask for support, although explicit support
statements are exactly what is required for IETF consensus calls, absent
a history to justify the kind of "default yes" assumption made in the 
announcement.  We don't have any such documented history for this effort.

Would any of us guess that the community would support the document?
Sure.  But guessing isn't the point.

That folks have chosen to ignore the stricture specified in the 
announcement and to post public support shows how deeply ingrained our 
model is.  And, yeah, enough such postings overwhelm problems with the 
last call wording...

d/

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:02:35 -0400

> Two weeks is normal process for spontaneous consensus calls?

1 Aug to 24 Aug strikes me as nearly four weeks, not two.  If you want
to propose that Russ add four more days, I'm sure your suggestion
would be considered.  You don't appear to be suggesting anything
constructive, though.

> No he didn't:

"He", being the IAB Chair on 1 Aug, as I said in my message, did:
<< The IAB, IESG, IEEE-SA and W3C have been developing an “Affirmation
of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm”.  Comments may be sent to
[email-masked]. >>

I any case, I recommend that you make specific, constructive
suggestions about what we *should* do at this point.  Vague criticism
that we're not doing it right are much less helpful, don't you think?

Barry

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 09:14:51 -0700

> would be considered.  You don't appear to be suggesting anything

1.  You think 3 weeks is "nearly" 4?

2.  The "Last Call" was issued on 10 August, not 1 August.

Again, what's happening here is a form of 'let's ignore IETF process 
because this is such a wonderful cause'.

It is, indeed, a wonderful cause, but I don't recall our establishing 
rules that are to be applied only when we feel like it, or in varied 
manner that our management decides is sufficient.

> of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm”.  Comments may be sent to

It's always a bit disconcerting to see an AD misinterpret process 
details this way, especially when it requires changing the reference to 
something that wasn't a Last Call.

> that we're not doing it right are much less helpful, don't you think?

sigh.

d/

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 18:34:44 +0100

Dave,

On 12/08/2012 17:14, Dave Crocker wrote:
...
> manner that our management decides is sufficient.

Quite true. However, RFC 2026 lays down rules for standards track
documents, and extends them to IETF process documents by stating
that they are published as BCPs.

It doesn't lay down rules for actions such as signing a declaration
of common general policy with other SDOs*. In my opinion, it is
completely appropriate for the IAB, IESG and the IETF Chair to adopt
an abbreviated or adapted procedure for such documents.

* In fact, this type of thing seems to be in the IAB's remit, BCP 39,
section 2, clause (f) "External Liaison: ...other technical and
organizational issues relevant to the world-wide Internet."

Regards
    Brian

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 18:51:35 +0100

Dave

If I interpret what you seem to be saying, it is that you care
more for the micro-observance of IETF protocol, than
taking steps to avoid Internet governance being
transferred by government decree to a secretive
agency of the UN that runs by government majority.

Is that a correct assessments of your priorities?

Stewart

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 11:22:13 -0700

> Is that a correct assessments of your priorities?

Another possibility is that Dave simply wanted to start yet another process discussion, and he thought this was the appropriate time and thread for it. A corollary to Hanlon's razor is "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by bureaucracy".

--Paul Hoffman, whose support for the proposal remains positive

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 23:49:35 +0200

> agency of the UN that runs by government majority.

That is the question that is not clear to me either.

I do believe the process question is an absolutely useful one.  We should have a process that is able to handle multilateral activities that include the IETF, with an element of negotiation, even compromise, and so on.  This is a case where leadership is actually required, and I don't think that process is an established one at all.  We do know how to run liaisons, which is probably the closest model to adhere to.  We know why we have handed the keys to this to the IAB.  (The present document is not prescriptive anyway, it is descriptive, and the IETF chair in concert with the IAB chair should be able to act on this level after a modicum of consultation.)

If the process question was actually raised to derail the signing of the current document, my reaction would be quite similar to Stewart's.
As I said before, sometimes you have to act.

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Lixia Zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:34:43 -0700

> Is that a correct assessments of your priorities?

Personally I do not feel the tone of this message is most appropriate in this ongoing discussion.

Lixia

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:58:27 -0700

>agency of the UN that runs by government majority.

Several hours ago the IAB approved collaboration guidelines with "a 
secretive agency of the UN which is run by government majority".  The 
US has already stated that it "will not support proposals that would 
increase the exercise of control over Internet governance or content" 
( http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/othr/telecom/196031.htm ).

Internet governance is somewhat like political prostitution ( 
http://political-prostitution.com/ ).  If the governments of the 
world want to fight about that for the benefit of humanity, it is 
their choice.  I don't see why the IETF has to get into a fight about 
Internet governance.  It is ok if the IETF Chair wants an affirmation 
supported by various SDOs to thrust under the nose of delegates in 
November.  I understand that in some venues the only way to be heard 
is to make pompous speeches.

At 14:49 12-08-2012, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>I do believe the process question is an absolutely useful one.  We 
>should have a process that is able to handle multilateral activities 
>that include the IETF, with an element of negotiation, even 
>compromise, and so on.  This is a case where leadership is actually 
>required, and I don't think that process is an established one at 
>all.  We do know how to

The IAB Charter allows it to handle multilateral activities.

>If the process question was actually raised to derail the signing of 
>the current document, my reaction would be quite similar to Stewart's.

A person expects people to behave as sheep if the person mentions 
"collective empowerment" and doesn't want anyone to raise 
questions.  The person could also smile, nod and ignore the questions 
as the sheep won't pursue the matter.

If a person wanted to derail the signing of the current document the 
person would only delay the outcome by about a month.  It would be 
somewhat entertaining as the IAB has already taken a vote on the 
matter.  Please do not ask me to elaborate on how this might be done.

>As I said before, sometimes you have to act.

And play god. :-)

The following are selected quotes:

   "Cooperation. Respectful cooperation between standards organizations,
    whereby each respects the autonomy, integrity, processes, and intellectual
    property rules of the others."

The IETF should not be disrespectful by making any comments about the 
ITU which may have a negative connotation. :-)

   "Collective empowerment. Commitment by affirming standards organizations
    and their participants to collective empowerment by striving for standards
    that:"

The affirmation is not a commitment taken by IETF participants.  The 
IESG knows the path to take if it would like to get such a commitment.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 22:58:49 -0400

On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 11:49:35PM +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> that include the IETF

Why is it useful?  

As far as I know, this is the very first time we have had a problem
shaped exactly like this.  There have been other issues with different
sets of parties on other multilateral activities, but they appear to
have demanded a different kind of response, since that's what they
got.  It seems to me that we could better spend our energies working
on standards (using our actual standards development model rather than
the abstract approximation in the affirmation!) than in working up
rules to govern a circumstance that, we should all hope, will not
arise again in our lifetimes.  Not every single bit of human
interaction requires a process rule.  Some things just require
judgement, and I encourage "the leadership" -- people we put (via the
nomcom) into the position to exercise such judgement -- to do so.
 
Best,

A

PS: I have on purpose not commented about the proposed statement,
because the request was for strong objections, and I have none.

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 23:03:16 -0400

Glen and others - 

I wanted to go back and comment on the assertion that Glen made that the IETF and IAB chairs do not "'represent' [him] or any one other than themselves".  I believe he is correct with respect to himself, and incorrect with respect to the IETF.

I agree the IETF is not a "representative democracy", the IESG and IAB (and not the IETF) are probably best described as electoral meritocracies.  We randomly select "electors" from a "qualified" pool which self-selects mostly from the set of all participants which in turn selects the IESG and the IAB from that set of all participants.  I'm pretty sure that Carsten was using "elect" to describe that process.

While the IESG and IAB may not speak for the IETF participants, they de facto and de jure do speak for the IETF.  It's a subtle difference, but an important one.  [CF the various RFCs detailing the responsibilities and duties of the IESG, IAB and their respective chairs, the RFCs detailing the standards process, and the various liaison's that have been arranged over the years.]

I've noted over the years that the constituency of IETF participants tends to have bouts with BSDS - back seat driver syndrome, and this is mostly not helpful.  We (referring to the broad set of IETF participants going back 25+ years) have over time evolved and agreed upon various ways of moving forward for generally accepted values of "forward".  Those ways include having granted the IESG the power to set the standards agenda, the IAB to negotiate and approve liaison agreements with standards bodies, the IESG to ultimately approve the standards, and the IESG, IETF Chair and IAB chair to declare a perception of consensus.  

We (the participants) have reserved to ourselves the rights jointly and severally to comment on all of the above, to be heard on even items delegated to the IESG and IAB and at times to carp and cavil on every single point of order.  Some of this is good for the process.  But we go too far way too often.  

In this case, the IAB, IESG and their respective chairs are doing the jobs we've asked them to do.  Russ, correctly I believe, asked for objections to the issuance of such statement, he didn't ask for consensus.  I also believe it would have been well within the current job description of the IAB and IETF Chairs to just go ahead and sign the thing.

I think it comes down to this:

If you (an IETF participant) have an objection to the statement, make it here.

If you have an objection to the process in general then - form your objections, write an ID, and socialize what you want changed.   If consensus shows you correct, it will apply down the line.

If you have a belief that the process has been violated, it's appropriate to make that point, but give details rather than vague intimations.

If you have an objection related to the members of the IESG or IAB performance, make them to the Nomcom or offer yourself as a candidate if you think you can do better or both.

We've - collectively, through process established over many years - selected a team of our colleagues to perform a circumscribed set of tasks.  Efficiency suggests we should mostly stand back and let them get on with it.

Mike

At 10:06 PM 8/11/2012, Glen Zorn wrote:
>>On Aug 11, 2012, at 16:41, Dave Crocker <<mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]> wrote:
>>
>Did the IETF morph into a representative democracy while I was sleeping?  Last time I checked, Russ was the chair of a committee of managers, chosen by a random selection of proles who may or may not have taken the opinions of others into account in that selection.  He was not "elected", nor does he "speak for the IETF"; ditto for Bernard.  If they wish to sign this statement (with which I, by and large, agree, BTW), that's fine.  If they wish to list all their titles (IETF-bestowed & otherwise), degrees, etc., that's fine, too, but not if the intent is to imply that they somehow "represent" me or any one other than themselves.  If support by IETF members at-large is to be signified, then an online petition of some sort would be a much better idea & much less deceptive.
>
>>
>>
>>

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 07:43:31 +0200

> Why is it useful?  

Because it elicits considered reactions like yours and Mike StJohns', and allows us to make explicit and affirm the (rough) consensus that we seem to share about the role and purview of our leadership.  (I'm not asking for another RFC, I'm just asking that we do consciously what we are doing, also so it may serve as a precedent.)

Grüße, Carsten

(This is likely my last message on this subject.)

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 07:50:24 +0100

On 13/08/2012 04:03, Michael StJohns wrote:
...
> We've - collectively, through process established over many years - selected a team of our colleagues to perform a circumscribed set of tasks.  Efficiency suggests we should mostly stand back and l…

At the risk of being at the top of the next "Narten" list, I can't help adding
that in the matter of liaison with other SDOs, our process formally states
that the IAB "acts as representative of the interests of the IETF and the
Internet Society". (See the same clause of BCP 39 that I cited yesterday.)

   Brian

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 21:07:40 -0400

+1 Well said Mike.  For what it’s worth I completely and unconditionally
support the signing of the document on behalf of the entire IETF community.

This support is personal and does not represent any official position of the
SIP Forum its full members or its board. But if we were asked….

It is totally clear to me that the WCIT process represents a substantive
threat to the multistake holder process in standards development that has
made the IETF and the Internet work. What is horrifying to me as well is
this idea of mandatory ITU based protocol certification testing.   The ITU
has ZERO business imposing this requirement on nation states. Our Industry
deals with compliance and certification testing in its own way without
government sanctioned intervention. 

We’ve seen this class of threat before multiple times over the past decade.
Hopefully this will pass but it will certainly come up again and again.
Vigilance Vigilance. Though our focus has been pure engineering we cannot
ignore the forces building up to demand a return to some form of
intergovernmental control of global communications.  We won!  Now the forces
of darkness say .. well if it’s going to deal with SIP/IMS telephony ( voice
) well it has to be regulated! Right ..!!  Wrong .. 

Granted the European PTT’s are not helping here with totally absurd ideas
about abandoning the privately negotiated transit peering model with some
form of data sender pays abomination because they can’t figure out their
business models.  Now they first had  a Whine and Cheese party in Brussels ,
but getting no satisfaction there they now go to the UN to support their
untenable position. 

Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting
Chairman of the Board of Directors SIP Forum
PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683
<mailto:richard(at)shockey.us>
skype-linkedin-facebook: rshockey101
http//www.sipforum.org

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Michael StJohns
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2012 11:03 PM
To: Glen Zorn; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

Glen and others - 

I wanted to go back and comment on the assertion that Glen made that the
IETF and IAB chairs do not "'represent' [him] or any one other than
themselves".  I believe he is correct with respect to himself, and incorrect
with respect to the IETF.

I agree the IETF is not a "representative democracy", the IESG and IAB (and
not the IETF) are probably best described as electoral meritocracies.  We
randomly select "electors" from a "qualified" pool which self-selects mostly
from the set of all participants which in turn selects the IESG and the IAB
from that set of all participants.  I'm pretty sure that Carsten was using
"elect" to describe that process.

While the IESG and IAB may not speak for the IETF participants, they de
facto and de jure do speak for the IETF.  It's a subtle difference, but an
important one.  [CF the various RFCs detailing the responsibilities and
duties of the IESG, IAB and their respective chairs, the RFCs detailing the
standards process, and the various liaison's that have been arranged over
the years.]

I've noted over the years that the constituency of IETF participants tends
to have bouts with BSDS - back seat driver syndrome, and this is mostly not
helpful.  We (referring to the broad set of IETF participants going back 25+
years) have over time evolved and agreed upon various ways of moving forward
for generally accepted values of "forward".  Those ways include having
granted the IESG the power to set the standards agenda, the IAB to negotiate
and approve liaison agreements with standards bodies, the IESG to ultimately
approve the standards, and the IESG, IETF Chair and IAB chair to declare a
perception of consensus.  

We (the participants) have reserved to ourselves the rights jointly and
severally to comment on all of the above, to be heard on even items
delegated to the IESG and IAB and at times to carp and cavil on every single
point of order.  Some of this is good for the process.  But we go too far
way too often.  

In this case, the IAB, IESG and their respective chairs are doing the jobs
we've asked them to do.  Russ, correctly I believe, asked for objections to
the issuance of such statement, he didn't ask for consensus.  I also believe
it would have been well within the current job description of the IAB and
IETF Chairs to just go ahead and sign the thing.

If you (an IETF participant) have an objection to the statement, make it
here.

If you have an objection to the process in general then - form your
objections, write an ID, and socialize what you want changed.   If consensus
shows you correct, it will apply down the line.

If you have a belief that the process has been violated, it's appropriate to
make that point, but give details rather than vague intimations.

If you have an objection related to the members of the IESG or IAB
performance, make them to the Nomcom or offer yourself as a candidate if you
think you can do better or both.

We've - collectively, through process established over many years - selected
a team of our colleagues to perform a circumscribed set of tasks.
Efficiency suggests we should mostly stand back and let them get on with it.

Mike

 

 
 
While a consensus-oriented process*) document could certainly be used to
improve (or deteriorate) the document by a couple more epsilons, I agree
with Randy Bush: Signing it now is a no-brainer.
 
Grüße, Carsten
 
*) Well there was a call for comments, and it already supplied the first
such set of epsilons.  
That may have to do when time is of the essence.
 
(That's also what you choose your leadership for.  
If we don't like the outcome, we can always decide not to re-elect Russ
:-)

Did the IETF morph into a representative democracy while I was sleeping?
Last time I checked, Russ was the chair of a committee of managers, chosen
by a random selection of proles who may or may not have taken the opinions
of others into account in that selection.  He was not "elected", nor does he
"speak for the IETF"; ditto for Bernard.  If they wish to sign this
statement (with which I, by and large, agree, BTW), that's fine.  If they
wish to list all their titles (IETF-bestowed & otherwise), degrees, etc.,
that's fine, too, but not if the intent is to imply that they somehow
"represent" me or any one other than themselves.  If support by IETF members
at-large is to be signified, then an online petition of some sort would be a
much better idea & much less deceptive.

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 00:56:42 -0700

Hi Lixia,
>appropriate in this ongoing discussion.

That one sentence shines on your character.  :-)

Regards,
-sm