Noel - putting the control in any regulated entities hands would be a staggering improvement. The IETF and IESG have degraded from an open forum into a professional haven for standards jockey's. This isn't about fair and open anymore its about who has the money to play. Sorry but reality is what it is. Todd Glassey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Noel Chiappa" <jnc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Cc: <jnc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 9:01 AM Subject: RE: NOMCOM term limits... Re: Now there seems to be lackof communicaiton here... > > From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > .. the IETF has yet to face the fact that major infrastructure changes > > such as IPv6 and DNSSEC require much closer attention to marketting and > > deployment than is currently the case. > > True. > > > We are all engineers and as engineers our preference for a management > > regime is likely to be an environment where there are no fixed > > deadlines, no accountability and endless scope for tinkering with > > details of the design. The IETF management procedures should hardly be > > a surprise therefore. > > Interesting point. > > > > The point of NOMCON was to maintain power in the hands of the > > establishment and to ensure that there was no effective means of > > accountability. > > This is flat-out incorrect. The NomCom was created *precisely* to bring > accountability to I* management positions, in the wake of the IAB's > problematic actions at the time of the CLNP recommendation. > > Yes, the NomComm structure does retain control of I* management positions > within the I* community, but what are the other options: give them over to > national governments (as the ISO does), or the UN? Somehow I doubt that > would improve the results. > > If what you're really saying is that what you don't like is that *you* don't > have any influence over the results, I'm not sure that the rest of us would > agree that that's a problem. > > > > The problem here is that we are now running an infrastructure that a > > billion people and about half of international commerce depends upon. > > Yes, that explains why IPv6 deployment has been so swift. > > The IETF isn't in charge of hardly anything. The vendors, ISP's and even the > users (q.v. IPv6) all have a lot more influence - not to mention governments, > and the legal systems of the various countries (e.g. look at wiretapping in > the US, and the Great Firewall of China). > > The IETF has one (limited) role to play, which is to develop open standards > (i.e. ones you don't have to sign a contract to read/use) in an open way > (i.e. no closed rooms). There is some disagreement on how good a job it does > on that (my take is that it's pretty good on both openness axes, but the > technical quality sometimes is lacking), but that's all it really does. > > > > The security of that infrastructure is unacceptable and throwing > > cryptography at it is not going to be the answer. > > An interesting technical point (I agree it's not the whole answer, but it > is part of the answer), but let's take it up once the useless poliics has > died down. > > > > The current IETF management procedures may meet the needs of some but > > they do not meet the needs of those people who have a different scope > > and a different vision of what the Internet should be, a vision and a > > scope that match what the Internet is today and will be in the future. > > The rest of us apologize for being stupider, and of more limited vision, > than you. > > Noel > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf