Re: [Gendispatch] IETF transparency and diversity

[Tony Rutkowski <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mark,

It was good to see a recognition that the IETF has a potentially 
significant antitrust exposure and willingness to increase the 
transparency mechanisms as a first step.  The exposure here is not new.  
The first major independent analysis of the topic occurred in 1994 by an 
external lawfirm.  I know, because I signed the check, and then signed 
for the liability insurance.  Over the years and especially during the 
past decade, almost all significant standards bodies individually and 
collectively have engaged in activities to diminish the exposure and 
develop related sets of organisational practices.  The IETF has been 
largely a non-participant outlier, ignoring the problems; although the 
relatively recent formation of the LLC and work of legal counsel have 
made some improvements.

The IETF has long been "easy pickings" for antitrust behaviors because 
of the lack of transparency and other organisational practices which 
enable the adoption of a IETF standards that enable a company to acquire 
significant market share for a product or service.  I believe there was 
testimony in recent litigation that an IETF specification was worth 
about $4 million.  Continuing participation in the IETF is very costly 
and the number of participants attributed to a few specific companies or 
(as noted by Phil H-B, unattributed operatives) at meetings is a 
testament to beneficiaries.

The observation that the IETF's problems today extend well beyond 
anticompetitive behavior seems spot on.  The participant and work item 
metrics show that major contemporary specification development and 
engagement today have shifted rather massively to venues like 3GPP.  The 
IETF remains stagnant.  Large numbers of academics flow in and out to 
mine ideas and advance their academic studies.  Few companies want to 
pursue anything there anymore except for a comparative handful trying to 
leverage a few more years and dollars out of legacy technologies.

The tendencies in the IETF to be abusive and intolerant - especially to 
people who are apostates - has unfortunately been standard practice in 
the IETF in the past few decades.  If you reject the religious mandates 
of the IETF, you are declared "off topic," or fail to get a group 
started, or told to go elsewhere - often in abusive ways.  The 
intolerant behavior is especially difficult for those in many 
non-Western cultures.  These are the bigger problems of the IETF.

All organisations are largely incapable of analysing themselves and 
understanding their strengths and weakness in the larger ecosystem.  The 
tendency is to reject criticism - even when it is essential.  It seems 
worth not only maintaining a generic discourse list, but to encourage 
dissident and critical participation without dismissing commentarity as 
rhetorical and pile-on behavior.  Occasional good humour would also help.

best,
tony r (working as an agnostic analyst who admittedly preferred the IETF 
circa 1970-1992)


On 08-Apr-21 1:02 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> So all of the above suggest that maintaining a generic IETF discourse list is probably a good thing.  --tony r
> That is a *huge* leap  -- can you show us your workings?
>