Re: Final Announcement of Qualified Volunteers
Lloyd, On Jul 9, 2013, at 5:23 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote: I do recall a case where both chairs of a WG belonged to a Major Organization. World domination was thwarted, however, because the chairs couldn't actually agree on anything; the organization was big enough that competing views were widespread within it. Much to the frustration of other members of the Major Organization. And the members of the working group. I can think of one company who uses to IETF to have internal arguments. But at the same time, I can think of another company who is very aligned in how they participate in the IETF. Many others are somewhere in between. There isn't a single model here. Bob
Re: Final Announcement of Qualified Volunteers
On 7/10/2013 8:52 AM, Bob Hinden wrote: On Jul 9, 2013, at 5:23 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote: I do recall a case where both chairs of a WG belonged to a Major Organization. ... I can think of one company who uses to IETF to have internal arguments. But at the same time, I can think of another company who is very aligned in how they participate in the IETF. Many others are somewhere in between. There isn't a single model here. Bob, If one were doing a broad discussion about the role of the IETF within various organizations' operations, your point would be interesting. For the current discussion, I suspect it's not all the relevant, since I understand this thread to be about the /potential/ for undue influence by an organization. Anecdotes about the potential being exercised (or not) provide some seasoning to the discussion but do not affect the essence of the concern. It doesn't matter whether that potential is exercised. What matters is the exposure of the IETF to that potential and how the IETF can reduce it. As with all security risks, the requirement is to anticipate them and protect against them, rather than wait to fix things afterwards... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Final Announcement of Qualified Volunteers
--On Saturday, July 06, 2013 14:53 -0700 NomCom Chair 2013 nomcom-chair-2...@ietf.org wrote: I am pleased to announce that we have 140 qualified individuals who have generously volunteered to serve as voting members of this year's Nomcom. Allison, Given my previous comment about statistical assertions, a quick look at this list sheds some additional light on cross-sections of the community. (1) While you have 140 people from whom to do a random draw, the no more than two volunteers with the same primary affiliation (RFC 3777, Section 4, Bullet17) rule means that the actual nomcom pool is only 81 even though some of the people are indeterminate (I've made some assumptions about company boundaries -- other assumptions would yield very slightly different results). That number is obtained by listing the companies and then counting any company with more that two volunteers as having only two. Neither the 140 number nor the 81 number is incorrect, they just measure different things. (2) Four companies account for 44.3% of the volunteers. As others have pointed out, while having a very large number of volunteers cannot produce more than two Nomcom voting seats due to that restriction, it can virtually guarantee (statistical randomness notwithstanding) that one will end up with one or two seats. Specifically, if the people selected constitute a cross-section of the volunteers, then more than 10% of the pool (14 volunteers) would predict to at least one seat. Two companies exceed that number and a third is very close. Randomness could make the actual numbers either better or worse, but, if an organization's goal were to assure at least one seat, that seems easily accomplished. Of course, having lots of volunteers doesn't imply that an organization was trying to accomplish any such thing -- it could just have a lot of public-spirited IETF participants and policies that allow people to commit the time. (3) It is probably too late to even discuss it for this year (see below) but it occurs to me that, if one wanted to minimize the odds of organizations trying to game the nomcom selection process, it would be rational to do a two step draw, first randomly selecting two volunteers from any organization offering more than two and then including only those two in the final selection process.On the other hand, that would give you around 81 candidates for the final selection this year. If running the final selection against order 140 people rather than order 81 causes the community to believe that it has a better sample, then that option probably would not be appropriate. I am not, however, convinced that we would actually have consensus for minimizing those odds, nor about whether a company's ability to nearly guarantee that at least one of its employees will be on the Nomcom by providing a large fraction of the volunteers violates the provision of Section 4, bullet 16, of RFC 3777 requiring ...unbiased if no one can influence its outcome in favor of a specific outcome. Actually, if I read Bullet 16 correctly, the choice of methods is up to you, with RFC 2777 (and 3797) being just examples. So, in theory, you could make that change. I wouldn't personally recommend it, but you are the one who has personal responsibility for things being fair and unbiased while this is just a statistical exercise for me. best, john
Re: Final Announcement of Qualified Volunteers
I find the presumption that IETF attendees employed by companies that send large number of attendees are robots to be somewhat distasteful. It also doesn't match my experience. I am sure that _some_ attendees from large companies are just as partisan as you fear, but some are not. So I am not convinced that your proposal would have a good outcome.
Re: Final Announcement of Qualified Volunteers
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 9:31 AM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote: if one wanted to minimize the odds of organizations trying to game the nomcom selection process, it would be rational to do a two step draw, first randomly selecting two volunteers from any organization offering more than two and then including only those two in the final selection process.On the other hand, that would give you around 81 candidates for the final selection this year. If running the final selection against order 140 people rather than order 81 causes the community to believe that it has a better sample, then that option probably would not be appropriate. The sample is better at 140 if individuals represent themselves, but not if they are swayed by their organizational affiliation, and organization is now a significant factor in what we can expect from volunteers -- not all, but even some of those from organizations where the volunteers are long time participants. I support this idea. I think the gain is greater than the loss, and it even fosters diversity.
Re: Final Announcement of Qualified Volunteers
--On Tuesday, July 09, 2013 13:49 + Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote: I find the presumption that IETF attendees employed by companies that send large number of attendees are robots to be somewhat distasteful. It also doesn't match my experience. I am sure that _some_ attendees from large companies are just as partisan as you fear, but some are not. So I am not convinced that your proposal would have a good outcome. It was _not_ a proposal, merely an analysis of the numbers and an exploration of alternatives. I also didn't say robots or anything that could be reasonably construed as robots. I don't even have any experience that would lead to expect that a company would expect any selected Nomcom members to march in lockstep. I do note that the no more than two people with the same primary affiliation rule is part of RFC 3777 (BCP 10) and take that as an indication that the community was unhappy with at least the appearances of one company having more than 1/5 of Nomcom voting membership. That limit is not part of any proposal I or, to my knowledge, others have made recently. With regard to that limit, my analysis is merely an exploration of how the intent of that rule might best be satisfied. I'd welcome a discussion of whether the analysis is correct or not. You might reasonably believe that it is irrelevant. But, as far as disagreeing with a proposal or not, please wait until someone makes one (fwiw, it won't be me). john
Re: Final Announcement of Qualified Volunteers
(2) Four companies account for 44.3% of the volunteers. OK, but what would X be in Four companies account for X% of people eligible to volunteer? That said, the not more than two from the same employer rule was written in anticipation of a theoretical problem; it seems that it was a good idea, but it does allow the following to become true: Four companies account for 67% of the NomCom members. Should we consider changing it to not more than one in view of today's data? Regards Brian
Re: Final Announcement of Qualified Volunteers
Should we consider changing it to not more than one in view of today's data? On it's face, that sounds like an absolutely Draconian rule. However stepping back a bit, it should prompt a simple question: Is the IETF so reliant on a tiny number of companies that we cannot produce viable committees if we require each member of a committee to be affiliated with a different company? In other words, are we really incapable of requiring extensive corporate diversity? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Final Announcement of Qualified Volunteers
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote: Should we consider changing it to not more than one in view of today's data? On it's face, that sounds like an absolutely Draconian rule. However stepping back a bit, it should prompt a simple question: Is the IETF so reliant on a tiny number of companies that we cannot produce viable committees if we require each member of a committee to be affiliated with a different company? In other words, are we really incapable of requiring extensive corporate diversity? Is the great majority of the wisdom in the IETF incorporated into a few megacorporations? (That might reflect market share, in which case, is it a problem?)
Re: Final Announcement of Qualified Volunteers
On Jul 9, 2013, at 4:58 PM, Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote: Is the great majority of the wisdom in the IETF incorporated into a few megacorporations? (That might reflect market share, in which case, is it a problem?) I don't know the answer to that question, but it's an interesting question. But the reason I reacted to John Klensin's message earlier the way I did is that I think that the question of how biased toward the company's goals a nomcom participant will be has a lot to do with the individual candidate. And large companies do seem to tend to snap up long-time influential IETF participants, so indeed it is likely that over time IETF knowledge will tend to concentrate in one large company or another. That being the case, the current two-person rule could as easily be argued to be damaging to the process as beneficial to it. I'm not making a claim either way, but I think that absent statistically valid data, this discussion is completely theoretical.
Re: Final Announcement of Qualified Volunteers
On Jul 10, 2013, at 12:07 AM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote: On Jul 9, 2013, at 4:58 PM, Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote: Is the great majority of the wisdom in the IETF incorporated into a few megacorporations? (That might reflect market share, in which case, is it a problem?) I don't know the answer to that question, but it's an interesting question. But the reason I reacted to John Klensin's message earlier the way I did is that I think that the question of how biased toward the company's goals a nomcom participant will be has a lot to do with the individual candidate. I think that before we discuss the extent of the bias, we should explore the question of whether such bias matters. Phrased as a question, how much can a nomcom member (or a pair of them) do to advance a company's goals? I've heard that nomcom members recuse themselves from discussions of candidates from their own company, so company X can't hope to get its employees appointed as ADs by stuffing the nomcom with other employees. Well, unless there's a huge back-room conspiracy among several such companies. Company X might have a bunch of technologies that they want to bring to the IETF to get them rubber-stamped as standards track RFCs, and they might want to see to it that ADs that will be trouble-makers don't get elected. That might even work (a single member is much more able to prevent someone being appointed than to cause someone to be appointed) But such proposals could be defeated in working groups and at IETF last call long before they even reach the IESG. I just don't see the benefit justifying the effort. Yoav
Re: Final Announcement of Qualified Volunteers
At 06:49 09-07-2013, Ted Lemon wrote: I find the presumption that IETF attendees employed by companies that send large number of attendees are robots to be somewhat distasteful. It also doesn't match my experience. I am sure that _some_ attendees from large companies are just as partisan as you fear, but some are not. So I am not convinced that your proposal would have a good outcome. I fixed the nomcom-chair-2013 email address as it does not make sense to send an email to an invalid address. When designing a random selection a person has to ensure that the selection is such that the unbiased nature is publicly verifiable. As John Klensin mentioned four companies account for 44.3% of the volunteers. A similar question was raised by Sam Hartman previously. When I looked at the affiliations over the years I noticed that two companies can easily get 40% of the vote. The IETF works on the presumption of good faith. Would a significant number of attendees from large companies adopt a partisan approach? It's difficult for the public to determine that. I'll change the question: does anyone believe that the average attendee from a large company will take a decision which is in the interest of the IETF Community even though that decision conflicts with what would be in the interest of the company? That's not the better question though. What is NomCom about? The possible answers are not in the RFCs. Anyway, the initial message was about having a broad pool and doing an unbiased selection from it. The pool may have less people but it is broader in the sense that there would be people from all walks of the IETF. I think that's what Jari Arkko might be referring to when he writes the word inclusive. Regards, S. Moonesamy
Re: Final Announcement of Qualified Volunteers
On Jul 9, 2013, at 2:07 PM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote: On Jul 9, 2013, at 4:58 PM, Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote: Is the great majority of the wisdom in the IETF incorporated into a few megacorporations? (That might reflect market share, in which case, is it a problem?) I don't know the answer to that question, but it's an interesting question. But the reason I reacted to John Klensin's message earlier the way I did is that I think that the question of how biased toward the company's goals a nomcom participant will be has a lot to do with the individual candidate. And large companies do seem to tend to snap up long-time influential IETF participants, so indeed it is likely that over time IETF knowledge will tend to concentrate in one large company or another. That being the case, the current two-person rule could as easily be argued to be damaging to the process as beneficial to it. I'm not making a claim either way, but I think that absent statistically valid data, this discussion is completely theoretical. Dear Ted, From my experience, some projects have been thwarted through actions of a few companies. The direction taken ended up being doomed which may have been the ultimate goal and potentially represents a real fairness issue IMHO. Regards, Douglas Otis
RE: Final Announcement of Qualified Volunteers
Ah, Allison actually misspelled it in setting her reply-to. So all replies would bounce. Seriously guys, nom-com is the way to go to reduce this confusion. Needs a minus. Lloyd Wood http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/ On plus side, I didn't make the typo, only copied it and couldn't spot it. Go me! From: Wood L Dr (Electronic Eng) Sent: 08 July 2013 08:55 To: l.w...@surrey.ac.uk; ietf@ietf.org; noncom-chair-2...@ietf.org Subject: RE: Final Announcement of Qualified Volunteers Gah. Am idiot misspelling it, sorry. Lloyd Wood http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/ From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of l.w...@surrey.ac.uk [l.w...@surrey.ac.uk] Sent: 08 July 2013 08:38 To: ietf@ietf.org; noncom-chair-2...@ietf.org Subject: RE: Final Announcement of Qualified Volunteers Email to noncom-chair-2...@ietf.org appears to fail - bounce below.
Re: Final Announcement of Qualified Volunteers
On 7/9/2013 8:59 AM, Scott Brim wrote: The sample is better at 140 if individuals represent themselves, but not if they are swayed by their organizational affiliation, and organization is now a significant factor in what we can expect from volunteers -- not all, but even some of those from organizations where the volunteers are long time participants. I support this idea. I think the gain is greater than the loss, and it even fosters diversity. I don't have a lot of time to chat about this, but - I agree with Scott that it matters what voting members are guided by (organization, personal experience, intuition, flipping coins ...) - I suspect that it's not possible to predict what any 10 voting members chosen at random will be guided by - I'm not sure we can even know what the 10 voting members *were* guided by, unless the behavior is so bad that the advisor freaks out or the chair tells us in the plenary Nomcom report If people want to think about the Nomcom volunteer pool, it may be useful to wonder about whether the perspective of voting members from more organizations would help the Nomcom make better choices. Of course, I'm not sure we can predict that, either :-) Spencer
Re: Final Announcement of Qualified Volunteers
Spencer Dawkins wrote: - I'm not sure we can even know what the 10 voting members *were* guided by, unless the behavior is so bad that the advisor freaks out or the chair tells us in the plenary Nomcom report and Yoav Nir wrote: how much can a nomcom member (or a pair of them) do to advance a company's goals? reality check the ietf is no longer a collegiate collection of engineers, computer scientists, and operators. sad to say, we need to get past that fantasy of the good old days. and i would point out that traditional SDOs are generally users trying to get multi-vendor interoperability and choice, not vendors throwing weight proportional to market share. but physics says we do this in an environment which is dominated by the vendors being the ones who can afford the cost to have a strong presence in the ietf, see http://archive.psg.com/051000.ccr-ivtf.html. and i believe that there is a real problem, not just fud and theory. i *heard* (from reliable sources, plural, but not witnssed) that there was a nomcom where company X said that an employee of X must be chosen for the iesg or very negative financial and political consequences would ensue. randy
Re: Final Announcement of Qualified Volunteers
On Jul 9, 2013, at 3:58 PM, Spencer Dawkins spencerdawkins.i...@gmail.com wrote: On 7/9/2013 8:59 AM, Scott Brim wrote: The sample is better at 140 if individuals represent themselves, but not if they are swayed by their organizational affiliation, and organization is now a significant factor in what we can expect from volunteers -- not all, but even some of those from organizations where the volunteers are long time participants. I support this idea. I think the gain is greater than the loss, and it even fosters diversity. I don't have a lot of time to chat about this, but - I agree with Scott that it matters what voting members are guided by (organization, personal experience, intuition, flipping coins ...) - I suspect that it's not possible to predict what any 10 voting members chosen at random will be guided by - I'm not sure we can even know what the 10 voting members *were* guided by, unless the behavior is so bad that the advisor freaks out or the chair tells us in the plenary Nomcom report If people want to think about the Nomcom volunteer pool, it may be useful to wonder about whether the perspective of voting members from more organizations would help the Nomcom make better choices. Of course, I'm not sure we can predict that, either :-) Dear Spencer, Precisely because it is impossible to judge motivations, the only way to ensure fairness is to ensure broad participation. It seems unfortunate an organization dedicated to developing the Internet has not done more to ensure those obtaining remote access are not treated as second class participants. This should greatly increase the available talent. The larger pool could be coupled with a meeting subscription to offset the loss of fees collected at meeting venues. To improve the experience, a flash based netbook coupled with the projector and PA could improve remote access into being much closer to a face-to-face experience worthy of fees requested. Importantly, both face-to-face and remote participants should be able to obtain equal roles. If the Internet is down, so is the meeting. That may make venue selection more dependent upon the quality of the Internet availability. Imagine real time translations made possible actually enhancing regional understanding. Regards, Douglas Otis
Re: Final Announcement of Qualified Volunteers
Hi John, Excuse me for replying to just part of your message below: On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 9:31 AM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote: ... (3) It is probably too late to even discuss it for this year (see below) but it occurs to me that, if one wanted to minimize the odds of organizations trying to game the nomcom selection process, it would be rational to do a two step draw, first randomly selecting two volunteers from any organization offering more than two and then including only those two in the final selection process.On the other hand, that would give you around 81 candidates for the final selection this year. If The current two nomcom member per sponsor limit is really pretty much of an honor system by self declaration. The Nomcom chair has no need to bindingly determine what affiliation every volunteer has. Only as nomcom members are selected does the Nomcom chair have to even think about this. I think that, as a result, there are probably at most a handful of cases where the Nomcom chair has to worry about this at all including ambiguous cases such as someone working for a subsidiary of a company that sponsors someone already selected for noncom or consultations that nominally work for a separate organization but are X% funded for their IETF work by BigCompany for various values of X. Any two step rule as you suggest will move affiliation from a tail end check designed to be sure that the nomcom passes the smell test to the heart of the selection process. I think the result would be a mess. However, if such a system were adopted, its not like an upfront selection to 2 per sponsor is the only alternative to the current unlimited pool from which the noncom is selected. Just to give an example of an alternative rule, since you have to classify all volunteers as to who their sponsor is, you could do initially a select among the V volunteers from sponsor S limited to the square root of V rounded up. That would seem like a more moderate intermediate course. running the final selection against order 140 people rather than order 81 causes the community to believe that it has a better sample, then that option probably would not be appropriate. I am not, however, convinced that we would actually have consensus for minimizing those odds, nor about whether a company's ability to nearly guarantee that at least one of its employees will be on the Nomcom by providing a large fraction of the volunteers violates the provision of Section 4, bullet 16, of RFC 3777 requiring ...unbiased if no one can influence its outcome in favor of a specific outcome. In my opinion, those words, in the context of the previous sentence which speaks of each volunteer being equally likely to be selected, means influence in favor of a particular volunteer or the like. (Although all volunteers are equally likely to be selected, the selections are ordered and after two have been selected with the same affiliate, subsequent selections with the same affiliation are discarded and additional selection(s) made.) ... Thanks, Donald = Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e...@gmail.com best, john
Re: Final Announcement of Qualified Volunteers
Hi Brian, On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: (2) Four companies account for 44.3% of the volunteers. OK, but what would X be in Four companies account for X% of people eligible to volunteer? That said, the not more than two from the same employer rule was written in anticipation of a theoretical problem; it seems I think not. If I recall correctly, there was at least one noncom with three voting members with the same affiliation. While there was no particular evidence that these voting members were acting as other than individuals, the consensus was that it just smelled bad and so the limit of two per primary affiliation was adopted. (Also note that, according to the records, the first two nomcoms had only 7 voting members.) Thanks, Donald = Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e...@gmail.com that it was a good idea, but it does allow the following to become true: Four companies account for 67% of the NomCom members. Should we consider changing it to not more than one in view of today's data? Regards Brian
RE: Final Announcement of Qualified Volunteers
I do recall a case where both chairs of a WG belonged to a Major Organization. World domination was thwarted, however, because the chairs couldn't actually agree on anything; the organization was big enough that competing views were widespread within it. Much to the frustration of other members of the Major Organization. And the members of the working group. This suggests that we can't produce viable committees _anyway_. Lloyd Wood http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/ From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker [d...@dcrocker.net] Sent: 09 July 2013 21:53 To: ietf@ietf.org Cc: nomcom-chair-2...@ietf.org Subject: Re: Final Announcement of Qualified Volunteers Should we consider changing it to not more than one in view of today's data? On it's face, that sounds like an absolutely Draconian rule. However stepping back a bit, it should prompt a simple question: Is the IETF so reliant on a tiny number of companies that we cannot produce viable committees if we require each member of a committee to be affiliated with a different company? In other words, are we really incapable of requiring extensive corporate diversity? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Final Announcement of Qualified Volunteers
On 7/9/2013 5:23 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote: I do recall a case where both chairs of a WG belonged to a Major Organization. World domination was thwarted, however, because the chairs couldn't actually agree on anything; the organization was big enough that competing views were widespread within it. Much to the frustration of other members of the Major Organization. And the members of the working group. This suggests that we can't produce viable committees _anyway_. As usual, what it suggests is that we think that individual counter-examples somehow refute basic, well-established principles. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Final Announcement of Qualified Volunteers
On 7/9/2013 2:07 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: On Jul 9, 2013, at 4:58 PM, Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote: Is the great majority of the wisdom in the IETF incorporated into a few megacorporations? (That might reflect market share, in which case, is it a problem?) I don't know the answer to that question, but it's an interesting question. But the reason I reacted to John Klensin's message earlier the way I did is that I think that the question of how biased toward the company's goals a nomcom participant will be has a lot to do with the individual candidate. Yes it does, but unfortunately that is irrelevant. The concept of conflict of interest is not concerned with whether an individual's behavior is problematic, but whether there is an inherent tension amongst different interests for the person. In other words, it's about the situational potential, not personal integrity. There are two ways to deal with conflict of interest. The first is to prohibit it. If a person has competing situational influences, they are excluded. In many environments -- and especially ones with industry participants doing industry work, like a standards body -- it is not possible to create a 'neutral' situation. So the alternative is to 'balance' things through diversity, ensuring that the situational forces pull in many different directions. (Actually, this also means we ought to mean we limit the number of router vendors or MTA vendors or... in positions of control for individual committees.) And large companies do seem to tend to snap up long-time influential IETF participants, so indeed it is likely that over time IETF knowledge will tend to concentrate in one large company or another. Trends towards industry concentration are a long-standing challenge. To the extent that the IETF wishes to continue to be inclusive, diversity pressures means it needs to limit the /ability/ of the giants to dominate. Again, it has nothing to do with the motives or style of any of the giants. It has to due with a requirement that others are assured equal opportunity to participate and influence. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Final Announcement of Qualified Volunteers
--On Tuesday, July 09, 2013 19:43 -0400 Donald Eastlake d3e...@gmail.com wrote: Hi John, Excuse me for replying to just part of your message below: No problem. I found your explanation helpful.Two observations at the risk of repeating myself (1) I did not make a proposal. I did point out that there were other possibilities within the general bounds of the no more than two rule. Beyond that, about as far as I'm willing to go is to say that different mechanisms (the current ordered list, selecting a company down to two candidates, your square root of V alternate suggestion, and maybe some other things) each have advantages and disadvantages and, probably, each optimizes for something different or deals with a different marginal case. I suspect that, most of the time, the differences in practice are likely to be trivial (or smaller). But I haven't even tried to do the analyses in large part because I think they would be much too speculative. (2) In response to Brian, you wrote... That said, the not more than two from the same employer rule was written in anticipation of a theoretical problem; it seems I think not. If I recall correctly, there was at least one noncom with three voting members with the same affiliation. While there was no particular evidence that these voting members were acting as other than individuals, the consensus was that it just smelled bad and so the limit of two ... The bad smell issue is, IMO, far more important than any discussions of whether people or organizations have misbehaved or might misbehave in the future. It is especially important should we have another round of discussions about antitrust policies because, for an SDO, the ability, even in principle, for one organization or set of interests to dominate a body or its leadership selection process can easily create a lawyer's playground. I don't think it would be wise to try to completely eliminate that risk even if it were possible, but passing a smell test is nonetheless important for multiple reasons. best, john
RE: Final Announcement of Qualified Volunteers
Email to noncom-chair-2...@ietf.org appears to fail - bounce below. If Allison hasn't received any feedback, that's why. Lloyd Wood http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/ Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists: noncom-chair-2...@ietf.org The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator. The following organization rejected your message: mail.ietf.org. Diagnostic information for administrators: Generating server: server-7.bemta-5.messagelabs.com noncom-chair-2...@ietf.org mail.ietf.org #mail.ietf.org #5.1.1 smtp; 550 5.1.1 noncom-chair-2...@ietf.org: Recipient address rejected: User unknown in virtual alias table #SMTP# Original message headers: Return-Path: l.w...@surrey.ac.uk Received: from [85.158.136.51:38926] by server-7.bemta-5.messagelabs.com id D5/8B-21002-69498D15; Sat, 06 Jul 2013 22:05:10 + X-Env-Sender: l.w...@surrey.ac.uk X-Msg-Ref: server-6.tower-49.messagelabs.com!1373148309!23609644!2 X-Originating-IP: [131.227.200.43] X-StarScan-Received: X-StarScan-Version: 6.9.9; banners=-,-,- X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 2287 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2013 22:05:10 - Received: from exht022p.surrey.ac.uk (HELO EXHT022P.surrey.ac.uk) (131.227.200.43) by server-6.tower-49.messagelabs.com with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 6 Jul 2013 22:05:10 - Received: from EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk ([169.254.1.180]) by EXHT022P.surrey.ac.uk ([131.227.200.43]) with mapi; Sat, 6 Jul 2013 23:05:10 +0100 From: l.w...@surrey.ac.uk To: noncom-chair-2...@ietf.org Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2013 23:05:08 +0100 Subject: RE: Final Announcement of Qualified Volunteers Thread-Topic: Final Announcement of Qualified Volunteers Thread-Index: Ac56k3eMACmjfPaISkGziW3QAHNMiwAAHRGQ Message-ID: 290e20b455c66743be178c5c84f12408223f494...@exmb01cms.surrey.ac.uk References: 20130706215330.8850.38261.idtrac...@ietfa.amsl.com In-Reply-To: 20130706215330.8850.38261.idtrac...@ietfa.amsl.com Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB Content-Language: en-GB X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 From: ietf-announce-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-announce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of NomCom Chair 2013 [nomcom-chair-2...@ietf.org] Sent: 06 July 2013 22:53 To: IETF Announcement List Subject: Final Announcement of Qualified Volunteers I am pleased to announce that we have 140 qualified individuals who have generously volunteered to serve as voting members of this year's Nomcom. Please take a look and get in touch before July 13 if you think your name should be here and it isn't (or possibly I've mis-typed it...), or if you have any other questions. Allison Mankin 2013-14 Nomcom Chair nomcom-chair-2...@ietf.org 001 John Scudder, Juniper 002 Stephen Hanna, Juniper 003 Wassim Haddad, Ericsson 004 Russ White, VTE 005 Stephan Wenger, Vidyo 006 ZHAO Yi, Huawei 007 Eric Gray, Ericsson 008 Steve Kent, BBN 009 Toerless Eckert, Cisco 010 Alia Atlas, Juniper 011 Victor Kuarsingh, Rogers 012 Yizhou LI, Huawei 013 Gonzalo Salgueiro, Cisco 014 Gang CHEN, China Mobile 015 Ning KONG,CNNIC 016 Marcelo Bagnulo, UC3M 017 SHEN Shuo 沈烁 (Sean), CNNIC 018 Fernando Gont, SI6 Networks 019 Glen Zorn, Network Zen 020 Reinaldo Penno, Cisco 021 Klaas Wierenga, Cisco 022 Pascal Thubert, Cisco 023 Mehmet Ersue, Nokia Siemens 024 Ole Troan, Cisco 025 Jouni Korhonen, Renesas Mobile 026 Giles Heron, Cisco 027 Gunter Van de Velde, Cisco 028 Arturo Servin, LACNIC 029 Eric Vyncke, Cisco 030 Cullen Jennings, Cisco 031 Tina Tsou, Huawei 032 Dhruv Dhody, Huawei 033 Hongyu LI (Julio), Huawei 034 Scott Mansfield, Ericsson 035 John Drake, Juniper 036 Andrew McLachlan, Cisco 037 Derek Atkins, Mocana 038 Suhas Nandakumar, Cisco 039 Eric Rescorla, RTFM 040 Karen Seo, BBN 041 Stig Venaas, Cisco 042 Stan Ratliff, Cisco 043 Ignas Bagdonas, Cisco 044 Peter Yee, AKAYLA 045 Donald Eastlake, Huawei 046 ZHOU Qian (Cathy), Huawei 047 Sam Hartman, Painless Security 048 Lixia Zhang, UCLA 049 Teemu Savolainen, Nokia 050 Alvaro Retana, Cisco 051 Terry Manderson, ICANN 052 Bill VerSteeg, Cisco 053 Melinda Shore, No Mountain 054 IJsbrand Wijnands, Cisco 055 Karen O'Donoghue, ISOC 056 Benson Schliesser, Juniper 057 Ari Keränen, Ericsson 058 Fangwei HU, ZTE 059 Mach CHEN, Huawei 060 Hui Deng, China Mobile 061 LIU Dapeng, China Mobile 062 Jaap Akkerhuis, NLNET Labs 063 Magnus Westerlund, Ericsson 064 Zehn CAO, China Mobile 065 Zaheduzzaman Sarker, Ericsson 066 Bhumip Khasnabish, ZTE USA 067 Andrew Chi, BBN 068 Thomas Nadeau, Juniper 069 Steven C (Craig) White, Alcatel-Lucent 070 Orit Levin, Microsoft 071 Sam Aldrin, Huawei 072 Paul Ebersman, Infoblox
RE: Final Announcement of Qualified Volunteers
Gah. Am idiot misspelling it, sorry. Lloyd Wood http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/ From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of l.w...@surrey.ac.uk [l.w...@surrey.ac.uk] Sent: 08 July 2013 08:38 To: ietf@ietf.org; noncom-chair-2...@ietf.org Subject: RE: Final Announcement of Qualified Volunteers Email to noncom-chair-2...@ietf.org appears to fail - bounce below.
Re: Final Announcement of Qualified Volunteers
Dears; I am just wondered why there is any names from Arab world, no volunteers or no acceptance for Arab people. Thanks for giving chance to ask. Sama Kareem On Sat, 06 Jul 2013 14:53:30 -0700, NomCom Chair 2013 wrote I am pleased to announce that we have 140 qualified individuals who have generously volunteered to serve as voting members of this year's Nomcom. Please take a look and get in touch before July 13 if you think your name should be here and it isn't (or possibly I've mis-typed it...), or if you have any other questions. Allison Mankin 2013-14 Nomcom Chair nomcom-chair-2...@ietf.org 001 John Scudder, Juniper 002 Stephen Hanna, Juniper 003 Wassim Haddad, Ericsson 004 Russ White, VTE 005 Stephan Wenger, Vidyo 006 ZHAO Yi, Huawei 007 Eric Gray, Ericsson 008 Steve Kent, BBN 009 Toerless Eckert, Cisco 010 Alia Atlas, Juniper 011 Victor Kuarsingh, Rogers 012 Yizhou LI, Huawei 013 Gonzalo Salgueiro, Cisco 014 Gang CHEN, China Mobile 015 Ning KONG,CNNIC 016 Marcelo Bagnulo, UC3M 017 SHEN Shuo 沈烁 (Sean), CNNIC 018 Fernando Gont, SI6 Networks 019 Glen Zorn, Network Zen 020 Reinaldo Penno, Cisco 021 Klaas Wierenga, Cisco 022 Pascal Thubert, Cisco 023 Mehmet Ersue, Nokia Siemens 024 Ole Troan, Cisco 025 Jouni Korhonen, Renesas Mobile 026 Giles Heron, Cisco 027 Gunter Van de Velde, Cisco 028 Arturo Servin, LACNIC 029 Eric Vyncke, Cisco 030 Cullen Jennings, Cisco 031 Tina Tsou, Huawei 032 Dhruv Dhody, Huawei 033 Hongyu LI (Julio), Huawei 034 Scott Mansfield, Ericsson 035 John Drake, Juniper 036 Andrew McLachlan, Cisco 037 Derek Atkins, Mocana 038 Suhas Nandakumar, Cisco 039 Eric Rescorla, RTFM 040 Karen Seo, BBN 041 Stig Venaas, Cisco 042 Stan Ratliff, Cisco 043 Ignas Bagdonas, Cisco 044 Peter Yee, AKAYLA 045 Donald Eastlake, Huawei 046 ZHOU Qian (Cathy), Huawei 047 Sam Hartman, Painless Security 048 Lixia Zhang, UCLA 049 Teemu Savolainen, Nokia 050 Alvaro Retana, Cisco 051 Terry Manderson, ICANN 052 Bill VerSteeg, Cisco 053 Melinda Shore, No Mountain 054 IJsbrand Wijnands, Cisco 055 Karen O'Donoghue, ISOC 056 Benson Schliesser, Juniper 057 Ari Keränen, Ericsson 058 Fangwei HU, ZTE 059 Mach CHEN, Huawei 060 Hui Deng, China Mobile 061 LIU Dapeng, China Mobile 062 Jaap Akkerhuis, NLNET Labs 063 Magnus Westerlund, Ericsson 064 Zehn CAO, China Mobile 065 Zaheduzzaman Sarker, Ericsson 066 Bhumip Khasnabish, ZTE USA 067 Andrew Chi, BBN 068 Thomas Nadeau, Juniper 069 Steven C (Craig) White, Alcatel-Lucent 070 Orit Levin, Microsoft 071 Sam Aldrin, Huawei 072 Paul Ebersman, Infoblox 073 Christopher Liljenstolpe, BigSwitch 074 Uma Chunduri, Ericsson 075 Suresh Krishnan, Ericsson 076 Varun Singh, Aalto University 077 Ron Bonica, Juniper 078 Bill (William) Manning, ISI 079 Radia Perlman, Intel 080 Daniele Ceccarelli, Ericsson 081 Deborah Brungard, ATT 082 Kostas Pentikousis, Huawei 083 Gregory Mirsky, Ericsson 084 Dave Sinicrope, Ericsson 085 Thomas Walsh, Juniper 086 Zhaohui (Jeffrey) ZHANG, Juniper 087 Xian ZHANG, Huawei 088 Mark Townsley, Cisco 089 Hannes Gredler, Juniper 090 Brian Trammell, ETHZ 091 Carlos Martinez, LACNIC 092 Peter Koch, DENIC eG 093 Daniel Migault, France Telecom - Orange 094 Yi (Aaron) Ding, University of Helsinki 095 Michael Richardson, Sandelman 096 Sohel Khan, Kellogg School of Mgt 097 John Bradley, Ping Identity 098 Huaimo Chen, Huawei 099 Matthew Campagna, Blackberry/RIM/Certicom 100 Keith Drage, Alcatel-Lucent 101 Chris Bowers, Juniper 102 Jakob Heitz, Ericsson 103 Tomofumi Okubo, ICANN 104 Emil Ivov, jitsi.org 105 Timothy B. Terriberry, Mozilla 106 JIANG Yuanlong, Huawei 107 Luigi Iannone, Telecom Paris Tech 108 Damien Saucez, INRIA 109 Lou Berger, LabN Consulting, LLC 110 Yana Stamcheva, jitsi.org 111 Ondřej Surý, NIC.CZ 112 Marcin Pilarski, Warsaw Univ Technology / Orange Polska 113 Michael StJohns, Consultant/Silver Spring Networks 114 Wes George, Time Warner Cable 115 Christian O'Flaherty, ISOC 116 Uwe Rauschenbach, Nokia Siemens 117 Olafur Gudmundsson, Shinkuro 118 Shwetha Subray Bhandari, Cisco 119 Tobias Gondrom, Owasp 120 Christer Holmberg, Ericsson 121 Susan Hares, ADARA 122 Kiran Kumar Chittimaneni, Google 123 Donald Fedyk, Alcatel-Lucent 124 Stephen Botzko, Polycom 125 Li Xue, Huawei 126 John Sauer, Tellabs 127 Jon Hudson, Brocade 128 Charles Eckel, Cisco 129 Li Kepeng, Huawei 130 Jason Weil, Time Warner Cable 131 Dorothy Gellert, Silver Spring Networks 132 Fred Baker, Cisco 133 Michael O'Reirdan, Comcast 134 Jean-Michel Combes, France Telecom - Orange 135 Jim Gettys, Bell Labs (Alcatel-Lucent) 136 John Brzozowski, Comcast 137 Ray Bellis, Nominet UK 138 Adam Montville, Center for Internet Security 139 Bing Liu, Huawei 140 Michal Krsek, Comprimato Systems -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by SKITCE MailScanner, and is believed to be
Re: Final Announcement of Qualified Volunteers
Dear Sama Kareem, Anybody who has attended three out of the past five IETFs is eligible and has been encouraged (a lot) to volunteer for the nomcom. While there are a number of IETF participants who rarely attend in-person meetings, the present consensus (and one that I'd tend to support) is that there are many aspects of searching for/selecting the leadership of the IETF where an in-the-meeting-rooms, in-the-hallways familiarity with the IETF is important. Also, I would hesitate to characterize the volunteer list as having no acceptance for Arab people because I don't know peoples' national origins. There is room for more discussion on the topics of diversity in the nomcom and in other aspects of the IETF, and that is why there is a current mailing list on the subject. Find out more and join the list at: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity Best regards, Allison Mankin Nomcom 2013-14 Chair nomcom-chair-2...@ietf.org On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 12:50 PM, 0 skar...@science.alquds.edu wrote: Dears; I am just wondered why there is any names from Arab world, no volunteers or no acceptance for Arab people. Thanks for giving chance to ask. Sama Kareem On Sat, 06 Jul 2013 14:53:30 -0700, NomCom Chair 2013 wrote I am pleased to announce that we have 140 qualified individuals who have generously volunteered to serve as voting members of this year's Nomcom. Please take a look and get in touch before July 13 if you think your name should be here and it isn't (or possibly I've mis-typed it...), or if you have any other questions. Allison Mankin 2013-14 Nomcom Chair nomcom-chair-2...@ietf.org 001 John Scudder, Juniper 002 Stephen Hanna, Juniper 003 Wassim Haddad, Ericsson 004 Russ White, VTE 005 Stephan Wenger, Vidyo 006 ZHAO Yi, Huawei 007 Eric Gray, Ericsson 008 Steve Kent, BBN 009 Toerless Eckert, Cisco 010 Alia Atlas, Juniper 011 Victor Kuarsingh, Rogers 012 Yizhou LI, Huawei 013 Gonzalo Salgueiro, Cisco 014 Gang CHEN, China Mobile 015 Ning KONG,CNNIC 016 Marcelo Bagnulo, UC3M 017 SHEN Shuo 沈烁 (Sean), CNNIC 018 Fernando Gont, SI6 Networks 019 Glen Zorn, Network Zen 020 Reinaldo Penno, Cisco 021 Klaas Wierenga, Cisco 022 Pascal Thubert, Cisco 023 Mehmet Ersue, Nokia Siemens 024 Ole Troan, Cisco 025 Jouni Korhonen, Renesas Mobile 026 Giles Heron, Cisco 027 Gunter Van de Velde, Cisco 028 Arturo Servin, LACNIC 029 Eric Vyncke, Cisco 030 Cullen Jennings, Cisco 031 Tina Tsou, Huawei 032 Dhruv Dhody, Huawei 033 Hongyu LI (Julio), Huawei 034 Scott Mansfield, Ericsson 035 John Drake, Juniper 036 Andrew McLachlan, Cisco 037 Derek Atkins, Mocana 038 Suhas Nandakumar, Cisco 039 Eric Rescorla, RTFM 040 Karen Seo, BBN 041 Stig Venaas, Cisco 042 Stan Ratliff, Cisco 043 Ignas Bagdonas, Cisco 044 Peter Yee, AKAYLA 045 Donald Eastlake, Huawei 046 ZHOU Qian (Cathy), Huawei 047 Sam Hartman, Painless Security 048 Lixia Zhang, UCLA 049 Teemu Savolainen, Nokia 050 Alvaro Retana, Cisco 051 Terry Manderson, ICANN 052 Bill VerSteeg, Cisco 053 Melinda Shore, No Mountain 054 IJsbrand Wijnands, Cisco 055 Karen O'Donoghue, ISOC 056 Benson Schliesser, Juniper 057 Ari Keränen, Ericsson 058 Fangwei HU, ZTE 059 Mach CHEN, Huawei 060 Hui Deng, China Mobile 061 LIU Dapeng, China Mobile 062 Jaap Akkerhuis, NLNET Labs 063 Magnus Westerlund, Ericsson 064 Zehn CAO, China Mobile 065 Zaheduzzaman Sarker, Ericsson 066 Bhumip Khasnabish, ZTE USA 067 Andrew Chi, BBN 068 Thomas Nadeau, Juniper 069 Steven C (Craig) White, Alcatel-Lucent 070 Orit Levin, Microsoft 071 Sam Aldrin, Huawei 072 Paul Ebersman, Infoblox 073 Christopher Liljenstolpe, BigSwitch 074 Uma Chunduri, Ericsson 075 Suresh Krishnan, Ericsson 076 Varun Singh, Aalto University 077 Ron Bonica, Juniper 078 Bill (William) Manning, ISI 079 Radia Perlman, Intel 080 Daniele Ceccarelli, Ericsson 081 Deborah Brungard, ATT 082 Kostas Pentikousis, Huawei 083 Gregory Mirsky, Ericsson 084 Dave Sinicrope, Ericsson 085 Thomas Walsh, Juniper 086 Zhaohui (Jeffrey) ZHANG, Juniper 087 Xian ZHANG, Huawei 088 Mark Townsley, Cisco 089 Hannes Gredler, Juniper 090 Brian Trammell, ETHZ 091 Carlos Martinez, LACNIC 092 Peter Koch, DENIC eG 093 Daniel Migault, France Telecom - Orange 094 Yi (Aaron) Ding, University of Helsinki 095 Michael Richardson, Sandelman 096 Sohel Khan, Kellogg School of Mgt 097 John Bradley, Ping Identity 098 Huaimo Chen, Huawei 099 Matthew Campagna, Blackberry/RIM/Certicom 100 Keith Drage, Alcatel-Lucent 101 Chris Bowers, Juniper 102 Jakob Heitz, Ericsson 103 Tomofumi Okubo, ICANN 104 Emil Ivov, jitsi.org 105 Timothy B. Terriberry, Mozilla 106 JIANG Yuanlong, Huawei 107 Luigi Iannone, Telecom Paris Tech 108 Damien Saucez, INRIA 109 Lou Berger, LabN Consulting, LLC 110 Yana Stamcheva,
Re: Final Announcement of Qualified Volunteers
--On Sunday, July 07, 2013 19:50 +0300 0 skar...@science.alquds.edu wrote: I am just wondered why there is any names from Arab world, no volunteers or no acceptance for Arab people. Thanks for giving chance to ask. Keeping in mind that people have to volunteer their own names (no one else can do it for them) and that volunteers for the Nomcom need to meet various requirements (of which the most restrictive are face to face attendance at three of the last IETF meetings and a commitment to attend up to a year or 18 months of upcoming IETF meetings face to face), I think your question turns into three or maybe four others: (1) Assuming that there are Arab people (quotes because I'm not certain everyone in the IETF community would identify that group the same way you do) who can satisfy those requirements to volunteer, why didn't any of them volumteer? (2) If more Arab people don't participate sufficiently in IETF to meet those requirements, and hence to be eligible to volunteer, why not? (3) Are there Arab people participating actively in the IETF who would volunteer for the Nomcom if the requirements were different but still met the IETF community's reasonable needs? Note that there is a draft on that subject floating around (draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility). Speaking quite personally and with the understanding that I may be in the minority, I believe that the current 3 of 5 rules try to provide a single measure that captures two entirely reasonable requirements: that a nomcom volunteer understand the IETF community and how it functions and that the volunteer understand the current situation in the IETF well enough to meaningfully participate and contribute to the Nomcom's work.It may be that the formula is wrong or that, as I now believe, we should be separating those concerns into two separate requirements, or not, but I think that it will be a very long time before the f2f prerequisite is eliminated entirely and perhaps longer before the community agrees that the Nomcom doesn't need to meet f2f. (3) If you meet the 3 of 5 requirement and assuming you are an instance of Arab people, why didn't you volunteer? And, especially if you don't meet that requirement, does the IETF expect to see you in Berlin as a first step to qualifying for future Nomcoms? best, john
