Subject: Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:52:40 +0100

While I appreciate the difficult position the chairs are in, I don't
agree with the approach and I believe it is inappropriate for the
working group to make such a decision.  Working groups don't vote.  Want
to change that process?  Better gain IETF consensus first.  And I will
argue against any such attempt.  There are plenty of other standards
bodies that do vote.  Go to one of them if that's what you want.

Eliot

On 11/28/13 2:35 PM, Hervé wrote:
> Dave Cridland wrote:
>
>> 2) If the Working Group does want to mandate a single codec, is there
> consensus for one of the alternate decision-making processes described
> in RFC 3929? This is our best guess at what to do here; despite it being
>  a (presumably expired) Experimental track RFC.
>
>
> RFC 3929 has been mentioned on the rtcweb mailinglist and during the last meeting.
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/maillist.html
> http://ietf88.conf.meetecho.com/index.php/Recorded_Sessions#RTCWEB_II
>
>
>> If nobody else appeals the decision, then I will - assuming I'm allowed to - if it gets this far.
>> it's not clear to me that there is a consensus surrounding the voting
> rules - they've certainly yet to be summarised in one place based on the
>  discussion that has occurred so far.
>
> No decision yet. Per
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg09909.html today
> is the last planned day for comment/discussion on the _proposal_ to vote,
> before the proposal gets updated. A further call for consensus to use
> the proposal would follow after updating.
> Perhaps you'd like to get involved now rather than later.
>
>
> Here's what I sent to someone else regarding the proposed schedule:
> Nov 28          last day of comment/discussion period on proposed _voting process_ http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg09909.html
>  
> after Nov 28    WG chairs will update, if necessary, the process proposal
> after update    normal IETF process to reach consensus about adopting the (updated) process proposal
>  
> +2 weeks        last day of the consensus call about adopting the voting process
>  
>  
> IF consensus was reached to use the voting process in those 2 weeks after the update for that process, ONLY THEN would the (2 week) voting period start (if that wasn't changed in the update/concensus call).
>  
> So the voting process can theoretically _start_ Dec 13 at the earliest, if accepted. Probably later (if ever), given that updating the proposal is unlikely to be instantaneous.
>  
>  
> I hope that made it clearer. The source for this is the bottom section of http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg09909.html
>  
>  
> - Hervé 		 	   		  
>

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:24:32 +0000

> Perhaps you'd like to get involved now rather than later.

I am involved now, and in the correct venue for discussions about changing
IETF process.

Dave.

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 10:34:48 -0500

> bodies that do vote.  Go to one of them if that's what you want.

One of the things to talk about here is the issue of voting versus a coin toss.   The advantage of a coin toss is that nobody can say it was gamed, because it's random—there is no process to blame if it doesn't go your way.   Voting, however, is somewhat predictable, and can be gamed.

So the concern is that if the working group has consensus to vote, it's probably because interested parties have some reason to believe the vote will go their way.   They may be horribly mistaken, or they may be correct—that isn't the point.   The point is that they aren't actually okay with the outcome not going their way.

So if the working group is willing to agree to a vote, and unwilling to agree to a coin toss, that says something _very important_ about the status of consensus in the working group.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 08:29:10 -0800

On 11/28/2013 7:34 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> if the working group has consensus to vote, it's probably because
> interested parties have some reason to believe the vote will go
> their way.
...
> So if the working group is willing to agree to a vote, and unwilling
>  to agree to a coin toss, that says something _very important_ about
>  the status of consensus in the working group.

No it doesn't.  Or at least, not what you indicate, above, that it says.

The thinking you describe is possible, of course, but it's not
guaranteed.  People's motives and expectations and logic can vary quite
a bit in a situation like this.

As merely one obvious example, people can simply be tired of the impasse
and eagerly seek progress and be willing to settle on any mechanism they
think will fairly break it -- even if it works against the outcome they
prefer.

Let's not confuse 'possible' with 'certain'.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 12:02:57 -0500

> think will fairly break it -- even if it works against the outcome they

The one tidbit you may be missing is that the working group specifically chose not to do a coin toss.   So "willing to settle for any mechanism" clearly doesn't apply in this case.

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:27:33 -0500

Ted Lemon <[email-masked]> wrote:
    >> As merely one obvious example, people can simply be tired of the
    >> impasse and eagerly seek progress and be willing to settle on any
    >> mechanism they think will fairly break it -- even if it works against
    >> the outcome they prefer.

    > The one tidbit you may be missing is that the working group
    > specifically chose not to do a coin toss.  So "willing to settle for
    > any mechanism" clearly doesn't apply in this case.

That tells me that the participants are not willing to live with losing and
move on, and so no voting process will work either.

-- 
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 15:51:22 -0500

> move on, and so no voting process will work either.

Right, that's the concern.

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:39:49 -0800

> move on, and so no voting process will work either.

[BA] The participants aren't willing to live with losing for business or legal reasons that aren't within the jurisdiction of an IETF WG.  As an example,  would an open source product that requires source code to be provided without a license fee put that aside because IETF RTCWEB has agreed upon H.264 as MTI?  Similarly, would a vendor who is concerned about potential liability from incorporating VP8 put that concern aside because the IETF RTCWEB WG has decided to make VP8 MTI?  

Given that "alternative decision processes" are quite unlikely to influence participant behavior,  it is appropriate to question why such a voting process is being used, without at least a determination of consensus to do so.

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 22:38:03 -0500

On Nov 28, 2013, at 8:07 PM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) <[email-masked]> wrote:
> If you still believe it so, please tell me when you think the WG decided this.

I'm just going by what people have told me.   If the working group hasn't indeed been asked whether they would accept the outcome of a coin toss, I would argue that that question should be asked.

---

From: Roberto Peon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 00:22:53 -0800

I'd prefer seeing the charter changed and no codec mandated.
The only reason to specify a must-implement is to increase interop; if
mandating a codec does not increase the amount of interop, why do it?

-=R

On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 7:38 PM, Ted Lemon <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I'm just going by what people have told me.   If the working group hasn't
> indeed been asked whether they would accept the outcome of a coin toss, I
> would argue that that question should be asked.
>
>

---

From: Roger Jørgensen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 14:45:10 +0100

> bodies that do vote.  Go to one of them if that's what you want.

Have to agree on this, no voting.

And if the problem is that bad, that it's impossible to reach
consensus in the WG, what about replacing the chairs? ...

--- Roger J ---

-- 

Roger Jorgensen           | ROJO9-RIPE
[email-masked]          | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no   | [email-masked]

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 06:54:50 -0900

> consensus in the WG, what about replacing the chairs? ...

Not for failure to gain consensus, by any means.  "No consensus,
do nothing" is a legitimate (if frustrating) outcome.  I think
they showed really questionable judgment in calling for a vote
and laying out eligibility criteria, and for me that's a huge issue
(congratulations, guys - just like that you changed us into a
member organization) but failure to gain consensus is a valid
outcome.

Melinda

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 12:38:29 -0500

> member organization) but failure to gain consensus is a valid

There are some cases where having a vote would be appropriate, this is not
one of them.

It is far from clear to me that having licensed a patent through the H.264
pool to practice H.264 that one has a license to practice VP8. My
experience of patent lawsuits is that this represents a major litigation
risk.

The issue is not whether the CODEC is 'probably' unencumbered, the issue is
whether it is likely to result in a lawsuit. The typical cost of bringing a
defense to trial is $2million plus expert fees and court costs. If it goes
to a full trial then the cost is double.

If you are an open source not for profit organization, the stakes are
rather different. Patent trolls don't usually bring spurious cases against
people who can't pay. The litigation risk is minimal.

Trimming the patent pool does make a lot of sense and VP8 will be out of
patent first so it does make a lot of sense to consider VP8 as must
implement once it is clear of all patent claims. But that has not yet
happened.

And note that the VP8 patent holders may hold some longer patents on H.264.
So they are quite likely to bring suit to prevent a CODEC becoming
established that would truncate the value of their patent claims.

The cases where voting would be a better, more appropriate decision making
technique is when the status quo is a specification that has been found to
be unimplementable or undeployable or insecure. According to the PKIX
specification name constraints MUST be marked critical, which makes them
incompatible with part of the deployed code base. The industry has decided
to proceed with its own standard that allows name constraints to be marked
non-critical because that allows us to make the Web more secure.

Having a vote in that circumstance seems rather better than having the
decision on consensus made by a WG chair. At least then the position is
clear. A 51% majority is not necessarily enough to make a change but if 80%
of a WG votes to make a change and the WG chair is one of the 20% who voted
the other way and declares that the decision lacks consensus then we know
the fix is in and people will ignore it if it stands in their way.

But no decision making process is going to help in this case because the
issues are commercial and involve a potential billion dollar litigation
risk.

Besides this, there are problems with the way the 'vote' was proposed. The
eligibility requirements were not specified in advance. I see a litigation
risk for the IETF there.

There is only one way out of this mess in the short term and that is to
choose a MTI CODEC that is widely supported AND is out of patent. At the
moment there is no such CODEC but MPEG2 is out of patent in 2017. MPEG2 is
not as performant but that is not the criteria for MTI, interoperability is
the criteria.

I really regret that we didn't make raw audio without compression a
standard part of the Web back in 1992 when we had the chance. It would have
been grossly inefficient but the availability of a free and unencumbered
codec that every browser supported would have greatly limited the value of
audio CODECs to the amount of bandwidth they saved rather than being the
value of providing audio.

-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/

---

From: "cb.list6" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 15:47:55 -0800

> member organization) but failure to gain consensus is a valid

+1 that no consensus means no MTI.  Because of IPR restrictions,  we cant
have nice things.

Regarding voting, I am a voting member, what are the rules of conduct?  May
I sell my vote?  EBay?

http://m.ebay.com/itm/310623399083?nav=SEARCH&sbk=1