[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Selecting the IETF candidates for ICANN PSO positions
Donald and all,
I believe that community involvement from the start is VERY important
contrary to Donalds comment. Without community involvement from
the Bottom-up, we just propagate the status quo, which is perceived,
now, and will be even more so in the future as being inadequate.
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd wrote:
> At one time, it was believed that ICANN would be special. In fact, I
> originally understood that the Protocol Council would just plain be
> the IAB or perhpas the IAB with two or three additional people
> representing other standards bodies so that selection of the protocol
> SO members of the ICANN Board would be pretty much the normal IETF
> selection of liaisons by the IAB. Thus ICANN would be a venue for
> coordination between protocol, domain name, and addresssing issues, a
> natural communications point one could say.
> But, as ICANN has changed under political pressure, it has already
> become the case that the IETF is only 25% of the protocol council and
> has no assurance of any representation whatsoever on the Board. If
> the same criterion, be they right or wrong, continue to be applied for
> protocol SO organization membership, the IETF will be completely lost
> in the crowd of other standards groups.
> If there is to be a communications point between Internet protocols,
> domain names, and addressing, I don't think that it exists in the
> present ICANN mechanisms. (I think it is important and people should
> be giving some thought as to how to add it to ICANN or create it
> ouside of ICANN.)
> Under these circumstances, I agree with Eric Brunner and don't see any
> reason for appointment of ICANN PSO representatives to be other than
> by the usual IAB selection of external liaisons. Further, I don't see
> any reason not to use that mechanism for Board candidates. Given the
> PSO membership, if the IETF actually wants to influence PSO Board
> members, it may be a lot more important how politically acceptable a
> candidate is to the ITU or the W3C than if they are favored by the
> IETF community.
> This really seems like an IAB external liaison job, not a nomcom IETF
> community opinion job.
> From: Eric Brunner <email@example.com>
> Message-Id: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> X-Sender: email@example.com
> Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 09:54:51 -0400
> To: Erik Huizer <Erik.Huizer@sec.nl>, firstname.lastname@example.org
> In-Reply-To: <email@example.com>
> >A considerable fraction of our collective acts of selection do not
> >involve the nomcom, and the task at hand may be less difficult to
> >accomplish than chairing a working group.
> >I personally favor the IAB selection proposal and hope to keep our
> >selection process (nomcom) an arm's length from external issues, in
> >the context you carefully delimited ... ICANN PSO not ICANN Board.
> >Given the general duty of ICANN Board members (see Karl Auerbach's
> >note of 25 Apr 1999, Re: suggested change to PSO draft), I can't yet
> >agree, or disagree with alternatives to your concluding para on the
> >distinct issue of mechanism(s) for the selection of candidates for
> >the ICANN Board.
> >At 09:38 AM 8/5/99 +0200, Erik Huizer wrote:
> >>I have seen little discussion on this, slightly in favor of the PSO
> >>council members be chosen from amidst IAB members, but not enough for
> >>me to judge rough consensus. Sine the alternative suggested is NOMCOM
> >>selection, let me re-itterate my own proposal that received no comments
> >>(positive or negative) that I am aware of, and that does seem to strike
> >>a good compromise.
> >>I send to this list the following on this topic:
> >>1) We like to have the officers within ICANN PSO selected through
> >>the nomcom process.
> >>2) We would also like to see that the protocol
> >>council do as little as possible and that it does not go out shopping
> >>for work.
> >>3) We also like to give sufficient cloud to the council candidates and
> >>like them to be aware of the current IETF issues.
> >>4) We don't want to burden the nomcom with finding even more people
> >>for more functions.
> >>So 1) argues for nomcom selected candidates, while 2,3 and 4 argue for
> >>IAB members taking the two PSO council slots.
> >>So here's my engineers proposal:
> >>Currently the voting members of the IAB are nominated by the nomcom.
> >>These members are nominated "at-large" without any specific functions.
> >>I propose we change this slightly. We keep the same total amount of
> >>voting IAB members but assign two of those specifically with the task
> >>of being the IETF nominated PSO council members. The nomcom appoints
> >>these IAB members as well as the other voting IAB members. So it is
> >>the nomcom that decides which IAB member is also PSO council member.
> >>This way we satisfy 1, 2, 3 and 4 above.
> >>I realise we have a bootstrap problem, but it should not be too
> >>difficult to find a solution to that problem. Let me first hear
> >>whether you agree that this is a good solution.
> >>Let me note that the above is only valid for the two PSO council
> >>seats. The IETF also has to select candidate(s) for the ICANN Board
> >>seats for the PSO. I think these selections (the final nomination will
> >>be by the PSO council) will HAVE TO be done by the nomcom (except
> >>maybe in the boorstrap phase), I see no other way.
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208