Hi Paul,
At 6:10 PM +0000 11/28/04, Paul Vixie wrote:
any way you can work a "sunshine law" in will work for me. i'm concerned about the ways in which ietf has acted "in my name" WITHOUT my consent or knowledge. i know from private responses to my previous threads on that topic that i'm not alone, not even rare, in having that concern.
An earlier comment from Brian Carpenter, to which several people agreed, indicated that we should consider the need for an IETF "sunshine law" separately from the IASA structure.
In my copious free time, I am in the process of writing a proposed "sunshine law" BCP based loosely on the Missouri Sunshine Law, which is (IMO) the best model that I have found (where "best" == short, effective, reasonable exceptions) that I've found. I hope to have something to circulate within the next few weeks, but I'd be happy to see someone else propose one sooner... :-)
...if a small band of "us" wishes to act in a leadership capacity, take responsibility for forward progress, choose and manage an administrator, and represent "our" position in discussions with meatspace government, then by i insist upon knowing more about "their" deliberations and decisions and actions than has ever been made public in the history of "the ietf". we can start by making "transparency" a first class object, right up there with "consensus" -- even though by most definitions you cannot have consensus without transparency, in ietf we have absolutely separated them and so we have to explicitly reinstate one.
This is why I've been harping on the concept of "informed consensus" and banging on the fact that it is the IESG's job to help the community reach _informed_ consensus on these topics, which means that it is our responsibility to keep the community well-enough informed to reach meaningful consensus.
Margaret
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf