Andy - Financially Motivated companies can maneuver and abuse the current process ass simply as have 5 or voices on any mailing list. What happens is that the IESG says there were be only one WG of any type and so that eliminates because those running the WG regularly refuse to accept initiatives with they either personally don't like or that threaten others that are under way in their WG's... For instance - would Harald H ever let me run an initiative through IPR? - not a chance and his refusal to allow me to file my drafts under his WG is a violation of the IETF charter, and tortuous interference by he and the IESG to prevent me from 'changing how the IETF operates'. The issue is that Peer-Review without proper oversight is an invitation to fraud and tortuous interference with others initiatives and the IETF is hip deep in the middle of it IMHO Todd Glassey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andy Bierman" <ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 8:55 AM Subject: Re: Its about mandate RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process > Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > >> From: Nelson, David [mailto:dnelson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > > >> 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. > > > > The NOMCON process is certainly grounded in academic theories of governance that were popular in the 80s. Many of them attempt to provide a practical implementation of Rawl's theory of justice. > > > > The problem I see is NOT who gets elected but the lack of authority and mandate. The reason that the time spent on NEWTRACK was wasted is that nobody feels that they have a mandate to change anything. > > > > As a result the IETF is a standards body with 2000 active participants that produces on average less than 3 standards a year and typically takes ten years to produce even a specification. > > > > I think Quality and Timeliness are real problems (unlike this one), > but the IETF output is much better than you suggest, and IMO it > is improving. > > I do not want NOMCOM to be replaced by an election process. > I want dedicated volunteers to continue the in-depth selection > process. I have no faith whatsoever that the community-at-large > would put any significant effort into an election process. I am concerned > that financially motivated companies would abuse the election process > to gain more control of the IETF. Then massive efforts would be needed > to fix the new mess. > > Andy > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf