Re: DISCUSSION: should there be term limits?

[todd glassey <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>]

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" <kre@MUNNARI.OZ.AU>
To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
Cc: <ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com>; <poised@lists.tislabs.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 11:48 PM
Subject: Re: DISCUSSION: should there be term limits?


>     Date:        Fri, 15 Mar 2002 07:49:44 -0800
>     From:        "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
>     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.

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.

>
> 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.

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.

>
>   | 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.

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.

>
>
>   | 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.

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.

>
>
>   | 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
>