[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ifwp] Re: The Board
Stef and all,
Einar Stefferud wrote:
> The primary desired property of the Interim and Permanent NewCo Board
> must be that is has very limited powers, to only oversee and
> facilitate the formation of open subordinate councils with fair
> hearing processes and representative "membership" based on open
> selection processes. Fairness and openness are the primary
> requirements.
Why is a hearing process necessary? Could not the same goal be accomplished by
as part of the formation of the Councils/commitees be that these Councils/commitees
be required to provide for accepting proposals for which they are charged with
from the Stakeholders/Membership?
For example we suggested:
For committee/Council
mandates for their charter, resolutions
must take the form of multiple resolutions and voted on by
the stakeholders/members at large in the form of
more than one resolution so as to provide choices
for the Stakeholder/Members.
>
>
> I now note that the IETF consists of one such "council".
Yes they do. However I would also note that it is very loosely formulated.
>
>
> The IAB, is the Internet Architecture Board, and not the Internet
> Activities Board. The IAB is appointed by the IETF Nominating
> Committee (NOMCOM) to deal mainly with over all Internet architectural
> issues, not to serve as a default authority to unilaterally take
> action when the IETF does not. This lesson was clearly driven home in
> the great IETF revolution following the IAB's IPv7 attempt to take
> over decisions about how to migrate away from the limitations of IPv4.
Yes and this amongst several other technical decisions and efforts that he
IETF has engaged in have been less than successful. For instance the TLS
and other security protocols.
>
>
> That revolution brought he IETF NOMCOM into operation. NOMCOM
> nominations to the IAB are confirmed or endorsed by the ISOC. As
> such, the IAB is not the parent of the IETF, and should not become the
> so called Protocols Council. This should be decided by the IETF, with
> rights to change its mind about who should represent its interests in
> the NewCo.
Respectfully we disagree strongly on your conclusion here Stef. Rather the
Protocols council/Committee should be determined by the Charter for that council/
committee with the approval of the Stakeholders/Members by majority vote. Any
and all resolutions that this council (Protocols council) need to get broader input
from the greater internet community, not from a narrow group such as the
IAB or IETF NOMCOM specifically as they have shown that they are very
WRONG on many issues in the areas of protocols such as TLS for instance.
>
>
> It is critical that we not turn the IETF/IAB reporting relationship
> around. In the final analysis, the IAB really reports to the IETF,
> and not to the ISOC, because the IETF has the power to appoint and
> remove IAB members, while the ISOC only has the power to reject
> specific IAB Nominees put forward by the IETF NOMCOM. To date, no
> NOMCOM nominee to the IAB has ever been rejected by the ISOC.
This is fine as long as the IAB/IETF NOMCOM does not map in as the
Protocol Council/Committee without other Internet standards groups being
included as well as individuals.
>
>
> The source of power in the IETF/IAB is derived from the fact that many
> individuals, often with voluntary employer support, volunteer to work
> on open Working Groups, and the NOMCOM members must be people who have
> attended several ITEF meetings over a recent period of time.
For the most part as it related internal to the IETF this is fine. But not as it
relates to the NewCo and the Protocol Council/Committee. This would be not
representative of the Internet community and the development ongoing on within
the internet community as a whole.
>
>
> Please note that the IETF is thus a Power Aggregation Structure that
> does not in any way derive its authority by delegation from any other
> source than from those participants who contribute to its working
> groups. Without their efforts, the IETF would not produce anything or
> have any power to make anything happen anywhere.
As you may have noticed over the past several years, the IETF has not really
produced any real standards rather RFC's or Requests for Comments.
>
>
> I do not endorse the idea that in the effort to creat NewCo, we should
> also knock down the IETF and rebuild it in some new form!
>
> If we want to build a new world, it will be very useful to start with
> the one we have! We need evolution, not revolution.
Agreed. This will require that the Evolution of the IETF/IAB/IANA will needto be done in
concert with this NewCo evolution as well, al be it that this
evolutionary process must be very fast as to seem like Revolution.
>
>
> Next, I propose that ARIN/RIPE/APNIC collectively now provide a
> passably acceptable formative stage of an ADDRESS Council, and I
> suggest that this is not the time to knock it down in the process of
> creating NewCo.
We agree that the ARIN/RIPE/APNIC should be included in the ADDRESS
council but not the ADDRESS Council in and of itself. Map-in is a non-starter.
> Under the future oversight of NewCo, future
> adjustments and modifications can be made without first tearing down
> what is already in place, and which is currently managing a stable
> process of coordinated IP address allocations.
Currently many organizations have noted that ARIN/RIPE/APNIC have not
really addressed in all circumstances the needs of the Internet community, that
is only one reason why the MoU and the GP/WP were necessary. Other
organizations were locked-out from participating by the IANA when these
organizations (ARIN/RIPE/APNIC) were set up. This is not to say that
in some cases they have not done a good job, it is to say that they are not
doing a GOOD ENOUGH job to meet the demands of the current Internet
market place.
>
>
> So, the big gap in the plan is the lack of a NAMES Council.
>
> I do not suggest that the NewCo Board be given the power to act in the
> name of any missing Council, but it should be charged with
> responsibility for working positively toward bringing councils into
> existence, with support from the Internet Community, especially
> including the DNS community which should now be working on its own
> self organization to support a NAMES council.
Agreed Stef. And it should or may be noted that ANY of the councils shouldbe open to whom
would serve on those councils by the internet community
and/or the Stakeholders by a voting mechanism on a majority basis.
We suggested the following:
Committee/councils Duties/Mandates/responsibilities
(Pick your own term here)
1.) All committees/councils should be delegated responsibilities
by the interim board or Permanent Board of Directors
and a charter for those committees should be than determined
with respect to their Duties/Mandates/responsibilities and
clearly and concisely stated in that charter.
2.) All committees/councils should have from between 5 to 7
members respectively.
3.) All committees/councils should determine their own staff
and financial requirements permanent to their charter
and suggest or recommend a budget to the Interim or
Permanent Board of Directors for their approval and
disbursement. This should be their first course
of action and have a deadline for completion in their
charter. ( any an all extensions must be approved
by special stakeholder Vote and than approved by the
interim/Permanent Board of Directors).
4.) All committees/councils should be paid a salary
commensurate with their responsibilities and responsibilities.
They should set salaries for staff assistants as well which
should be approved by the Interim/Permanent Board Of Directors.
5.) All committees/councils should serve no longer than
a two year term and only two consecutive terms should
be allowed. Some committees should have shorter terms
based on charter requirements set by the Interim/Permanent
board of directors. (Special Committees).
6.) All committees/councils should submit progress reports
in very great detail to the Interim/Permanent Board of
directors. THese reports should be posted for Stakeholder/
member review and comment.
7.) All committees/councils should have the ability to
appoint under specific contract any company or organization
for technical review or operational review any
aspects of their mandated charter on an as needed basis.
this should be done on a cost plus 10% basis at most and
cost recovery basis at best. This may apply for implementation
or standards setting purposes as well where outlined in
the Committees/Councils charter.
8.) All committees/councils charters should have the ability
to mandate to the IANA and the IETF for standards and
practices purposes. All corporations should be required
to comply to the findings of these Committees/Councils
to be able to continue as a Internet member under the
current Internet structure under the threat of removal
of their DN's or IP addresses/blocks from the current
or any future structure. This is the one and only
direct power that the Committee should have. THere
should be a time period determined for which these
companies or organizations have to comply. That
time frame should be as short as possible.
9.) All committees/councils should should receive a salary
commensurate with their responsibilities.
they should also receive traveling expenses for all travel
via a Corporate Credit Card and expenses on such travel
should be made publicly available on the appropriate web sites
for stakeholder/member review. Salaries should be kept
confidential.
10.) All committees/councils should not be required to
relocate or domiciled at any one location.
Facilities such as a PC with video confronting and IP
phone software as well as a standard phone should be
provided them to execute their duties. In addition
Palm tops or Laptops should also be provided with
like capabilities as well as cellular capability.
In addition all committees/councils should be provided
800# service for each member and/or staff assistant
as determined by that committee/council.
11.) All committees/councils should provide as many methods of
input from the stakeholder/member community as possible
directly to the individual Committee/council members.
(E-Mail, VIdeo confronting, and Phone). Transcripts
or archives of those discussions should be made
available on the appropriate web sites for public review.
All phone-mails or E-mails must be responded to personally
from committee/council members within a 24 hour period
unless they are on vacation, or ill. There should be
no set working hours for Committee/Council members.
>
>
> The whole point of my message is that by reducing the powers of the
> NewCo Board, we can greatly reduce the anxiety with which we
> collectively appoint people with fair minds and positive histories to
> serve as overseers of fair and open processes.
Agreed. The BOD should act or have the powers only given to it by the
Stakeholders and specified in the Bylaws. The BOD should have the power
to SUGGEST OR RECOMMEND formulating Councils/Committees with the
VOTE in a simple majority of the Stakeholders given a specific set of
guidelines specified in the Councils/Committees Charter. The BOD should
also be charged with Implementing andy and all of the Policies that are determined
by these Councils/Committees after they have been VOTED upon by the stakeholders
by a 2/3 majority to insure consensus.
>
>
> The fear that stands in the way of deciding how to elect fairly
> representative members to the Interim or Permanent NewCo Boards stems
> from the fear that they will then have great power to impose unwanted
> policies and rules on the Internet. My proposal is designed to reduce
> that fear to acceptable levels so we can proceed with formation of
> NewCo.
But you are not specific on how you propose to do this Stef. We on the other
hand are in our proposal.
For example:
Setting up structure for Interim/Permanent Board, Stakeholder
membership and Committee selection/elections. (And outline)
Preface:
On of the things that needs to be done very quickly
before the Sept 30 drop dead date is to get the Interim
Board of Directors determined. I have outlined ONE
method in which this might be achieved.
1.) Premises/requirnments(membership)
a.) All internet Users and domain name holders are
stakeholders. In other words every netzin is
a stakeholder/member by default.
1.) There may be many classes of stakeholders
defined. These definitions should be
determined by a Stakeholder/member approved
committee/council and approved by the interim/permanent
Board of Directors.
2.) All classes of stakeholders are equal regardless
of affiliation or "Class" in which they may be
defined in terms of Voting or input.
b.) All stakeholders get one vote for the candidate
that is running for a board seat.
c.) Use the GP outline for Board members (15) for
Interim and permanent Board of Directors.
1.) All Interim or permanent Board members
should be voted upon by the Stakeholder/Members
at large regardless of the seat to which the
proposed candidates may be running for.
d.) Elections are done in a perscribed time frame
(say 10 days)
e.) Anyone can run for a board seat withing the
constituencies/membership class in which they truly
represent. No other qualifications required.
f.) Elections are done online from several web sites
on a voluntary basis. (Exception: IFWP and GIAW
sites must carry an election application on those
sites.
g.) all candidates must submit to the Mailing lists
their reasons for running, their qualifications,
and a brief statement of their positions on all
issues they feel they have a position on.
These candidates must submit position papers must also
be posted on the IFPW and GIAW web sites at a
minimum. Any other sites that wish to carry
their positions can do so on a voluntary basis.
h.) All or any stakeholder may contact them via
private E-mail or posting to the list any questions
they have for those candidates Answers will
be posted to the appropriate E-Mail lists for
everyone to review. (time frame 10 days to complete)
i.) All votes will be tallied and posted on the GIAW and
the IFWP web sites. Any others that wish to also
carry this info on their web sites are invited
to do so. This will be achieved through the use
of an online voting application that requires a
singed digital certificate that must be supplied
via the IFWP/GIAW web sites free of charge. Any
other public interest Web sites may also on a voluntary
basis provide and these Singed Digital Certificates
or provide a link to where one can be obtained
"Free of charge" for the purposes of voting. The
Exact same voting application inclusive of any
resolutions that appear on the Electronic Ballot
must be provided completely by any volunteer web
sites.
j.) Limit of term is for 6 months for Interim Board
members.
k.) All interim/Permanent board members can also serve on
the permanent board but must stand re-election.
II.) VOTING MECHANISM
2.) How to accomplish Voting of Interim/permanent Board of Directors
and committee/council members.
a.) An application must be made available on the
GIAW and IFWP web sites. All other web sites
can carry this application if they choose to
to do so on a voluntary basis. If done, they must
provide/carry the exact same web voting application
in its entirety.
b.) This application will use the E-Mail address
(One per person) and a digital signature for
verification (Class 1 cert should be sufficient).
These Digital signatures must be provided free of
charge for this purpose initially.
III.) COMMITTEE/COUNCIL ELECTION PROCESS.
Committee/council members MEANS OF DETERMINING (Initial)
1.) Premises/requirnments
a.) Same requirements as for Interim/permanent Board of directors
except points (c, j, k).
b.) Must be elected by stakeholder/membership vote and serve in
that capacity as interim committee/council members or
permanent members pending election of the
permanent board of directors.
c.) Interim Board of Directors must call for a
new election of the Committee/council members 3 months
after taking their positions.
d.) No committee/council member can serve more than 2 consecutive
terms of 1 yr in length.
e.) All committees/council jointly determine the permanent
Board of directors length of term and number
of consecutive terms. This must take the form
of multiple resolutions and voted on by
the stakeholders/members at large in the form of
more than one resolution so as to provide choices
for the Stakeholder/Members.
> The single most important thing that we are gaining consensus on in
> the open IFWP process is that we all want the end result to involve
> fair and open processes, so this is the primary meta problem to solve,
> and I suggest that we appoint the NewCo Board to solve it, without
> giving it any responsibility for acting in the name of any of the
> required councils.
>
> By the way, I believe that these observations are fully in line with
> the work done over the past year by the Open Root Server
> Confederation, Inc. <www.open-rsc.org>
>
> Cheers...\Stef
>
>
>
> To view the archive of this list, go to:
> http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp
> username=ifwp password=ifwp
>
> To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
> subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
> unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org or call 202-408-0008
>
> ___END____________________________________________
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy