David - the problem is that the members that NOMCOM is supposed to represent never got to say whether they where happy with someone else essentially holding a proxy for them. The Process is flawed in that it forces one to rely on the word of the parties in the process and that means that any time one disagrees with them, that this becomes an insult to those individuals. This is not professionally competent it's grossly negligent in my book and well, its the IETF. Todd Glassey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nelson, David" <dnelson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 5:39 AM Subject: RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process Noel Chiappa writes... > ...I think perhaps the most useful one in practise is > another one which I mentioned earlier: > > >> Rather than having everyone spend ten minutes on > >> deciding who to select, a subset (which the random > >> draw hopefully makes reasonably representative of > >> the group as a whole) does a more in-depth and > >> thought-through selection. I agree. Since this thread has been going done the path of civic governance models, let me elaborate one that supports the current NOMCOM model. In my area, many towns govern themselves via Town Meeting, in which all voters are invited to a deliberative session to pass budgets, ordinances and the like. When all goes according to plan, there is an open exchange of information and a reasoned debate on the issues prior to each vote. Many claim this to be the "true democracy". Other towns have decided that the population has grown too large for Town Meeting to be practical and effective. One alternative is Representative Town Meeting. The electorate chooses (by election) a tractable number of representatives to attend the Town Meeting on their behalf. These representatives debate the issues and vote them up or down. I think NOMCOM is like a Representative Town Meeting, in which the representatives are chosen by a random selection process, rather than by election. The outcome, which supports in-depth consideration and substantial, informed debate, is much the same. Quite frankly, I don't see a need to substantially change this model. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf