I was reading the Appeals court ruling in the VeriSign case last night and Michael Froomkin's paper on the anti-trust issues affecting ICANN. If you follow the logic of the Appeals court opinion it is highly unlikely that ICANN can remain a private organization. Since the administration already understands that ICANN is a liability, that only leaves the ITU. http://www.discourse.net/archives/2009/06/9th_cir_revives_com_antitrust_case.html One thing that struck me as a real risk is that similar concerns that may affect the IETF might have been ignored because of the people and the manner in which they were raised rather than on the merits. That does not make them any less of a liability. The current structures pretty much ensure that these issues only get raised by fringe elements. On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 6:20 AM, SM<sm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Phillip, > At 08:32 10-06-2009, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: >> >> A more useful change would be to abolish NOMCON and for those >> currently qualified to sit on NOMCON to elect the IAB and ADs >> directly. > > The implications of the above is much more than publicizing the IETF list of > nominees. The discussion of that document highlighted how a simple > statement like "we want an open list" is not as simple as it sounds. > >> Direct elections provide accountability and authority. Today we have > > Direct elections can also turn into a popularity contest. Instead of > democracy, we can end up with "mediacracy". > >> Instead of the outcome of proposals to change the standards process >> being 'the IESG didn't like them', we the broader membership[*] of the >> IETF can demand reasons and persons. And we can kick out the people >> who are being obstacles to change or proposing changes we disagree >> with. > > You can already ask for reasons. There's even a "face the participants" at > each IETF meeting where you can ask a question to the IAB, the IESG or a > particular member of the body. > > There will always be obstacles to change. There are advantages to having > these obstacles or else we end up with proposals that suit the whim of the > day. The is also room in the current process to kick out people. > >> Direct elections allow for contrarian views to enter into the >> discussions. The priority of successive NOMCONs has been to ensure > > Contrarian views can be labelled as the view of the fringe when they are > only shared by a small minority. And such views or the people holding then > will be cast away. > >> Yes, there is a risk of factions, but not a very large one. I am a >> member of the Oxford Union society and I know quite a bit about that >> type of politics. A Cisco or a Microsoft faction would be entirely >> counter-productive for the companies involved who come to the IETF to >> build industry support for adoption of their proposals and to be part >> of the consensus that emerges. The only type of faction that could be >> sustained long-term would be one committed to a particular technical >> principle such as preventing wiretap-friendly protocols or copyright >> enforcement schemes and only then if there was a sizable >> counter-faction or some group idiot enough to try to do that type of >> thing in IETF. > > Although a Cisco or Microsoft faction may be counter-productive, there will > be an incentive for factions to be formed as the proposed system provides an > environment conducive for that. In the new system, you'll also have to do > away with the notion of consensus. After all, that's not democratic. The > factions that will emerge in the long run are those that can use the system > to their advantage. When you have direct elections, you cannot aim for long > term goals as the people expect immediate results. Or else you won't stand > a chance when you put your name up for reelection. > >> We should try democracy. It is an old idea, seems to work. > > For some, yes. As someone on this mailing list put it, we are guided by our > interests. The new system will only amplify that. The rule of the majority > is only effective if there is participation. We only have to look at the > amount of participation in here to see that there will always be a silent > majority which only springs to life when a narrowly focused issue captures > their attention. > >> [*] Yes, we should demand consideration as citizens, not serfs. The >> pretense that the IETF has no members is very convenient for those >> appointed, not so great for the rest of us. > > You get the amount of consideration you deserve. If you behave like a serf, > you will be considered as one. :-) For the IETF to have members, it needs > to define a criteria for membership. This opens a debate about "currently > qualified to sit on NomCom". Most organizations that have adopted the > NomCom model have found it difficult to define a formal constituency and > devise an appropriate structure for it. You'll have to build in the check > and balances to keep the authority in check. > > Readers are cautioned not to draw any conclusions from the information below > without a thorough analysis. The following is a distribution by company: > > RFC authors Attendance > Cisco 12% 6% > Ericsson 3% 3% > Microsoft 2% 2% > Nokia 2% 2% > Juniper 2% 3% > Nortel 2% 1% > IBM 2% 0% > NTT 2% 2% > > One or more companies might have a significant advantage in a > membership-based organization. There may even be an increase in membership > as the economic factors favor some companies. There would be pressure to > change the model from individuals to corporate. > > I don't think that the current model is perfect. If you want to rock the > boat, I'm all for it. But before you do that, I'd like to have some > assurance that the boat won't sink. :-) > > Regards, > -sm > -- -- New Website: http://hallambaker.com/ View Quantum of Stupid podcasts, Tuesday and Thursday each week, http://quantumofstupid.com/ _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf