Re: Jon Postel Re: 202210301538.AYC

[William Allen Simpson]

On 10/31/22 9:27 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote:

On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 2:37 AM Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG
 wrote:


1.   What is going on on the Internet is not democracy even formally, 
because there is no formal voting.
3GPP, ETSI, 802.11 have voting. IETF decisions are made by bosses who did 
manage to gain power (primarily by establishing a proper network of 
relationships).
It could be even called “totalitarian” because IETF bosses could stay in one 
position for decades.


I do not see how it can be called totalitarian given the IETF Nomcom
appointment and recall mechanisms. Admittedly it is not full on
Sortition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition) but it is just one
level of indirection from Sortition. (See
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2020/08/20/indirection-the-unsung-hero-of-software-engineering/?sh=2cc673587f47)



Donald helped setup this Nomcom system, based upon his experience in the
F community WorldCon.  Credit where credit is due, and our thanks!

Randy Bush has also had some cogent thoughts over the years.

Once upon a time, I'd proposed that we have some minimum eligibility
requirements, such as contributing at least 10,000 lines of code, and/or
*operational* experience.  Certain IESG members objected (who stuck
around for many years).

Once upon a time, IETF did have formal hums.  That went by the wayside
with IPSec.  Photuris won the hum (overwhelmingly).  We had multiple
interoperable international independent implementations.

Then Cisco issued a press release that they were supporting the US NSA
proposal.  (Money is thought to have changed hands.)  The IESG followed.

Something similar happened with IPv6.  Cisco favored a design where only
they had the hardware mechanism for high speed forwarding.  So we're
stuck with 128-bit addresses and separate ASNs.

Again with high speed fiber (Sonet/SDH).  The IESG overrode the existing
RFC with multiple independent implementations in favor of an unneeded
extra convolution that only those few companies with their own fabs could
produce.  So that ATT/Lucent could sell lower speed tier fractional links.

Smaller innovative companies went out of business.

Of course, many of the behemoths that used the standards process to
suppress competitors via regulatory arbitrage eventually went out of
business too.

Internet Vendor Task Force indeed.

RE: Jon Postel Re: 202210301538.AYC

[Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG]

It is believed by many that 2 terms should be the maximum for one position of 
any chair (if it is a democracy).
It is evidently not the case for IETF - people stay in power for decades. It is 
just a fact that is not possible to dispute.
Yes, Nomcom is the mechanism for AD and above. I do not want to sort out how 
exactly it is performed.
By the way, WG chairs have been put aside from any election mechanisms.

If any politician would manage to possess power for more than 2 terms - he 
would be immediately called "totalitarian".
Even if he would say that there is a mechanism for it.
Eduard
-Original Message-
From: Donald Eastlake [mailto:d3e...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 4:28 PM
To: Vasilenko Eduard ; North American Network 
Operators' Group 
Subject: Re: Jon Postel Re: 202210301538.AYC

On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 2:37 AM Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG  
wrote:
>
> 1.   What is going on on the Internet is not democracy even formally, 
> because there is no formal voting.
> 3GPP, ETSI, 802.11 have voting. IETF decisions are made by bosses who did 
> manage to gain power (primarily by establishing a proper network of 
> relationships).
> It could be even called “totalitarian” because IETF bosses could stay in one 
> position for decades.

I do not see how it can be called totalitarian given the IETF Nomcom 
appointment and recall mechanisms. Admittedly it is not full on Sortition 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition) but it is just one level of 
indirection from Sortition. (See
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2020/08/20/indirection-the-unsung-hero-of-software-engineering/?sh=2cc673587f47)

Thanks,
Donald

>  ...
>
> Eduard

Re: Jon Postel Re: 202210301538.AYC

[Donald Eastlake]

On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 2:37 AM Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG
 wrote:
>
> 1.   What is going on on the Internet is not democracy even formally, 
> because there is no formal voting.
> 3GPP, ETSI, 802.11 have voting. IETF decisions are made by bosses who did 
> manage to gain power (primarily by establishing a proper network of 
> relationships).
> It could be even called “totalitarian” because IETF bosses could stay in one 
> position for decades.

I do not see how it can be called totalitarian given the IETF Nomcom
appointment and recall mechanisms. Admittedly it is not full on
Sortition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition) but it is just one
level of indirection from Sortition. (See
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2020/08/20/indirection-the-unsung-hero-of-software-engineering/?sh=2cc673587f47)

Thanks,
Donald

>  ...
>
> Eduard

RE: Jon Postel Re: 202210301538.AYC

[Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG]

1.   What is going on on the Internet is not democracy even formally, 
because there is no formal voting.
3GPP, ETSI, 802.11 have voting. IETF decisions are made by bosses who did 
manage to gain power (primarily by establishing a proper network of 
relationships).
It could be even called “totalitarian” because IETF bosses could stay in one 
position for decades.



2.   Democracy does not work anywhere because unqualified people could be 
driven to make wrong decisions.
Voting qualification check is mandatory, not everybody should have the right to 
vote for a particular question.
I do not want to tell what was the qualification check in the early US or 
ancient Greece (where democracy was working) – because many would shout at me. 
It is not relevant to the technical group anyway.
ETSI filters voting rights by money – the company should pay for memberships.
802.11 filter voting rights by the member's physical presence on the last 4 
meetings.
It is not ideal but it is better than no filtering at all.

Eduard
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei@nanog.org] On 
Behalf Of Abraham Y. Chen
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 1:42 AM
To: Noah 
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group 
Subject: Re: Jon Postel Re: 202210301538.AYC

Dear Noah:

0)  "Iterations often times leads back to the beginning.": Thanks for 
distilling this thread to a concise principle. Perhaps your name was given with 
the foresight of this discussion? 

1)  As a newcomer to the arena, I have always been perplexed by the apparent 
collective NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome of the Internet community. While 
promoting openness, everything seems to go with "my way or noway". Of course, 
each Internet practice or convention was determined by some sort of consensus 
by majority opinion. However, once it gets going, it appears to be cast in 
concrete. There is a huge inertia against considering alternatives or 
improvements. Some of them even appear to be volunteered "policing" without 
full understanding of the background. Just like how practically all democratic 
governments are facing these days, a well-intended crowd can be led by an 
influencer to derail a social normality. It does not seem to me that strictly 
adhering to "one person one vote" rule can guide us toward a productive future.

2)  To follow what you are saying, I wonder how could we think "out of the box" 
or go "back to the future", before it is too late for our world wide 
communications infrastructure to serve as a reliable daily tool without being a 
distraction constantly? That is, four decades should be long enough for our 
Internet experiments to be reviewed, so that we can try navigating out of the 
current chaos, or start with an alternative.

Regards,


Abe (2022-10-30 18:41 EDT)




On 2022-10-30 12:47, Noah wrote:

On Mon, 17 Oct 2022, 00:18 Randy Bush, mailto:ra...@psg.com>> 
wrote:
my favorite is

It's perfectly appropriate to be upset.

Ack

I thought of it in a slightly
different way--like a space that we were exploring and, in the early days,
we figured out this consistent path through the space: IP, TCP, and so on.

the impact of IP, TCP in improving human life across the globe in the last 
decades can not be overstated.

Human enginuity through names like Google have enabled the age of information 
and access to information through addresses and digital trade routes have 
continued to ensure peace for humanity on the positive side of the 
communications spectrum.

What's been happening over the last few years is that the IETF is filling
the rest of the space with every alternative approach, not necessarily any
better.  Every possible alternative is now being written down.  And it's not
useful.  -- Jon Postel

I suppose original human ideas and thoughts tends to stand the taste of time.

Iterations often times leads back to the beginning.

Noah



[https://s-install.avcdn.net/ipm/preview/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]

Virus-free.www.avast.com