----- Original Message ----- From: "Joel M. Halpern" <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 5:39 PM Subject: RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process ratherthansome > Clearly, we could choose to do that. > There are several drawbacks. > > Firstly, the rough consensus, to the degree it is observable, favors > the current approach. By those allowed to participate and vote - not by the breadth of those participating in the IETF itself. > Secondly, there is a significant and important portion of the IETF > which does not meet the NOMCOM criteria. This was consider an > unfortunate but inevitable effect selecting some criteria. Which means that the NOMCOM selection process excludes people it represents. > To > counterbalance this, the NOMCOM itself is supposed to consider the > needs of the entire IETF, not just that portion which attends meetings. I would suggest that you review fiduciary responsibility which is what you are talking about. > Thirdly, voting itself has many drawbacks, and as Fred Baker observed > recently, is liable to focus on popularity rather than on > effectiveness for the job. Which means that the Sponsor's and others who have bet the bank on their retaining control of the IESG could lose that control. Too bad. > > I doubt that in the brief consideration based on your note I have > found all of the problems. > > If there were a serious problem with the NOMCOM process, it would > probably be sensible to evaluate whether the drawbacks of an election > mode would be worth whatever problems it solved. However, without a > clear statement of problems with the NOMCOM process, I can not see > any point in trying to evaluate an alternative. Elections are not in > and of themselves "good". For civil governments, they seem to be the > best choice we can find. > > Yours, > Joel M. Halpern > > At 08:09 PM 9/14/2006, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > >There is no need to define the concept of membership. The term > >'membership' is essentially a legal term and the courts will define > >it according to their convenience. One can be a member without > >having a vote and can have a vote without being a member. > > > >Under English Common Law saying that a thing is so does not make it > >so. If a an agreement that meets the legal definition of a > >partnership agreement explicitly states that it is not a partnership > >agreement that does not make it any less a partnership nor does it > >extinguish the liabilities, &ct. of such. > > > > > >All that is needed to hold an election is to define the franchise. > >The franchise in this case would be defined in the same manner as > >the NOMCON is at present. > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf