Subject: RE: Opt-in Decission day: Postponed

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 12:02:41 -0700

> sounds like time to move this non-technical and ietf-generic 
> discussion to the poised list.

I can certainly understand why you would prefer that approach however the
rest of the working group appears to have a different opinion.

We are not discussing a change in the rules of IETF working group process.
What we are discussing is something rather different. We are discussing our
outrage at being told what we believed to be the rules of the game turn out
not to be.

This is particularly bad when the working group chair is an area director.
So the recourse the working group might normally have through their Working
Group chair to the IESG is lost. Nor does it help when the working group
chair makes it clear that he does not feel that he has any duty to defend
his actions to the working group as a whole and is openly contemptuous of
those who complain.

The IETF works on a finely balanced set of understandings and counter
balances. One of the most important principles being that the standards
group decision process is open and runs according to certain rules. If area
directors start saying that decisions are actually dependent on approval by
cabals that discuss in secret, keep no minutes of their discussions and
whose existence is not fully documented then working groups are likely to
loose confidence in IETF process.

The formation of a consultation body, whether formal or informal to advise
area directors cannot be equated with taking advice from the members of the
body individually. The message you sent to the group states that the
directorate has made a corporate decision and moreover it is implied that
that corporate decision overrides the consensus of the working group.

If the area directors accept advice from individuals then that may be
rebutted by advice from an individual. If on the other hand the advice of a
'directorate' is accepted the rebuttal by an individual may appear to have
less weight.

Also in the case of a statement by an individual I can call up that
individual and discuss the issues with them personally. If the opinion is
that of the directorate I can call up each member of the directorate
personally and reach agreement with them that opt-in is a reasonable
proposal but that is still trumped by the 'decision' reached by the
directorate en-cabal.

I am currently contacting each member of the cabal individually and
discussing the issue with them. It is clear that the information made
available to them fell far short of the information provided to the working
group list.

I am very concerned that when I try to ask certain questions I am told 'that
is confidential'. So I am placed in the position of rebutting arguments that
I cannot even find out. Again taking confidential advice from an individual
is very different from taking confidential advice from a group. If the area
director takes advice in confidence from Alice I can still call up Alice and
ask her her opinion and she can choose to share her confidential advice with
me if she chooses. If however Alice par

I am not a lawyer but I have to wonder what the legal status of such a body
is. However 'advisory' you claim the directorate to be it can be argued that
they have been ascribed standing in the decision process. This drives a
coach and horses through the carefully constructed set of proceedures
designed to protect area directors from littigation. Worse yet many of the
members of the directorate are probably not covered by the indemnity
insurance that ISOC buys to protect area directors.

More significantly from my point of view I have very grave reservations
about working in a standards body that includes my competitors if that body
is taking advice from confidential cabals. That type of activity may well
invalidate the safe harbor provisions of the Sherman act.

So before things spin too far out of control I will ask nicely. Can you
please provide the working group with a list of concrete objections to
opt-in from the directorate?

		Phill

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 13:52:58 -0700

> think of it as "hmmm, this is deep stuff.  maybe some folk i 
> know and can work with would be able to advise me."  there are 
> directorates in transport, sub-ip, wireless, and a number of 
> other areas or subjects.

That may be convenient for you as an AD but that does not mean 
that it is proper for you to take advice from such a body.

In particular a lot of IETF standards relate to products for 
which there are competing suppliers. Agreements made involving
such competitors have to meet a very strict set of requirements 
to ensure that there are no anti-trust entanglements. Taking 
advice in confidence from an unrepresentative ad-hoc comittee
does not meet those requirements to say the least.

The IETF fiction that we represent ourselves and not our companies
is unlikely to help very much in this respect. It certainly did
not help the head of Sotherby's. In this case I doubt the fiction
would be accepted in court because the IESG minutes list the 
members along with their companies as do RFCs and Drafts.

In this case the Working Group is at a further disadvantage because
we are talking to you with your WG chair hat on and then you go 
talk to yourself with an AD hat on and then go talk to the cabal 
you appointed. [Let us leave aside the curious issue that you are
AD of Ops and not the internet area where DNSEXT is listed]

There is a clear conflict of interest there.

Discussion of that conflict of interest that affects its work is 
certainly a legitimate topic of conversation for the working group 
list.

		Phill

---

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 14:06:56 -0700

> > Would you mind answering the question?
> 
> sure, for the third time.  they advise the area directors, in the case
> of dns-dir, erik for dnsext and me for dnsops.

The question remains unanswered.

The issue is whether it is the case as implied by your initial message
that you are taking advice form this body on the subject of whether a
WG specification should be approved.

Is it the case that you have asked for advice on whether OPT-IN is 
to proceed?

The only public information I can find on the DNS Directorate is a 
comment that setting up a workshop on DNS Scaling issues was moved
to them by the IESG in 1999.

I don't think anyone has a problem with an AD passing off a set of 
long term research oriented issues to an ad-hoc group for 
consideration. There is a major problem treating a standards process
issue in that fashion.

		Phill