RE: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

"Richard Shockey" <> Tue, 14 August 2012 01:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3207321F873E for <>; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 18:08:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.15
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.15 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.114, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3Bu5rfwvLWgn for <>; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 18:08:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id F10E021F873D for <>; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 18:08:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 7624 invoked by uid 0); 14 Aug 2012 01:07:45 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ( by with SMTP; 14 Aug 2012 01:07:44 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:To:From; bh=gZl3zmurvTQJw0hZagY+hgcrv70C3kE3pXOKNUvI6RI=; b=Nkoo9lpD0Ch+mD2cnTUcLU5HwGclaCKksssLwgDRy0meMNZN+h4NCQbR76CnojBmi//U29ClBBfrhxnVumGMUIpY3+DoCFoAMQJQjtTttWBG3usrx9xc8jpEbs+Uw69z;
Received: from [] (port=57213 helo=RSHOCKEYPC) by with esmtpa (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <>) id 1T15bk-0003ZP-6f; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 19:07:44 -0600
From: "Richard Shockey" <>
To: "'Michael StJohns'" <>, "'Glen Zorn'" <>, <>
References: <> <> <> <1344737164.8891.29.camel@gwz-laptop> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Subject: RE: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 21:07:40 -0400
Message-ID: <011901cd79b9$34bcc6f0$9e3654d0$@us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_011A_01CD7997.ADAB26F0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac15ADM5GOB5KUVzRNS4SayarxwVAgAtc88Q
Content-Language: en-us
X-Identified-User: {} {sentby:smtp auth authed with}
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 01:08:18 -0000

+1 Well said Mike.  For what it’s worth I completely and unconditionally
support the signing of the document on behalf of the entire IETF community.


This support is personal and does not represent any official position of the
SIP Forum its full members or its board. But if we were asked….


It is totally clear to me that the WCIT process represents a substantive
threat to the multistake holder process in standards development that has
made the IETF and the Internet work. What is horrifying to me as well is
this idea of mandatory ITU based protocol certification testing.   The ITU
has ZERO business imposing this requirement on nation states. Our Industry
deals with compliance and certification testing in its own way without
government sanctioned intervention. 


We’ve seen this class of threat before multiple times over the past decade.
Hopefully this will pass but it will certainly come up again and again.
Vigilance Vigilance. Though our focus has been pure engineering we cannot
ignore the forces building up to demand a return to some form of
intergovernmental control of global communications.  We won!  Now the forces
of darkness say .. well if it’s going to deal with SIP/IMS telephony ( voice
) well it has to be regulated! Right ..!!  Wrong .. 


Granted the European PTT’s are not helping here with totally absurd ideas
about abandoning the privately negotiated transit peering model with some
form of data sender pays abomination because they can’t figure out their
business models.  Now they first had  a Whine and Cheese party in Brussels ,
but getting no satisfaction there they now go to the UN to support their
untenable position. 

Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting
Chairman of the Board of Directors SIP Forum
PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683
skype-linkedin-facebook: rshockey101



From: [] On Behalf Of
Michael StJohns
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2012 11:03 PM
To: Glen Zorn;
Subject: Re: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm


Glen and others - 

I wanted to go back and comment on the assertion that Glen made that the
IETF and IAB chairs do not "'represent' [him] or any one other than
themselves".  I believe he is correct with respect to himself, and incorrect
with respect to the IETF.

I agree the IETF is not a "representative democracy", the IESG and IAB (and
not the IETF) are probably best described as electoral meritocracies.  We
randomly select "electors" from a "qualified" pool which self-selects mostly
from the set of all participants which in turn selects the IESG and the IAB
from that set of all participants.  I'm pretty sure that Carsten was using
"elect" to describe that process.

While the IESG and IAB may not speak for the IETF participants, they de
facto and de jure do speak for the IETF.  It's a subtle difference, but an
important one.  [CF the various RFCs detailing the responsibilities and
duties of the IESG, IAB and their respective chairs, the RFCs detailing the
standards process, and the various liaison's that have been arranged over
the years.]

I've noted over the years that the constituency of IETF participants tends
to have bouts with BSDS - back seat driver syndrome, and this is mostly not
helpful.  We (referring to the broad set of IETF participants going back 25+
years) have over time evolved and agreed upon various ways of moving forward
for generally accepted values of "forward".  Those ways include having
granted the IESG the power to set the standards agenda, the IAB to negotiate
and approve liaison agreements with standards bodies, the IESG to ultimately
approve the standards, and the IESG, IETF Chair and IAB chair to declare a
perception of consensus.  

We (the participants) have reserved to ourselves the rights jointly and
severally to comment on all of the above, to be heard on even items
delegated to the IESG and IAB and at times to carp and cavil on every single
point of order.  Some of this is good for the process.  But we go too far
way too often.  

In this case, the IAB, IESG and their respective chairs are doing the jobs
we've asked them to do.  Russ, correctly I believe, asked for objections to
the issuance of such statement, he didn't ask for consensus.  I also believe
it would have been well within the current job description of the IAB and
IETF Chairs to just go ahead and sign the thing.

I think it comes down to this:

If you (an IETF participant) have an objection to the statement, make it

If you have an objection to the process in general then - form your
objections, write an ID, and socialize what you want changed.   If consensus
shows you correct, it will apply down the line.

If you have a belief that the process has been violated, it's appropriate to
make that point, but give details rather than vague intimations.

If you have an objection related to the members of the IESG or IAB
performance, make them to the Nomcom or offer yourself as a candidate if you
think you can do better or both.

We've - collectively, through process established over many years - selected
a team of our colleagues to perform a circumscribed set of tasks.
Efficiency suggests we should mostly stand back and let them get on with it.


At 10:06 PM 8/11/2012, Glen Zorn wrote:

On Sat, 2012-08-11 at 17:13 +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote: 


On Aug 11, 2012, at 16:41, Dave Crocker
<> wrote:
> consensus-oriented process
Sometimes, though, you have to act.
While a consensus-oriented process*) document could certainly be used to
improve (or deteriorate) the document by a couple more epsilons, I agree
with Randy Bush: Signing it now is a no-brainer.
Grüße, Carsten
*) Well there was a call for comments, and it already supplied the first
such set of epsilons.  
That may have to do when time is of the essence.
(That's also what you choose your leadership for.  
If we don't like the outcome, we can always decide not to re-elect Russ

Did the IETF morph into a representative democracy while I was sleeping?
Last time I checked, Russ was the chair of a committee of managers, chosen
by a random selection of proles who may or may not have taken the opinions
of others into account in that selection.  He was not "elected", nor does he
"speak for the IETF"; ditto for Bernard.  If they wish to sign this
statement (with which I, by and large, agree, BTW), that's fine.  If they
wish to list all their titles (IETF-bestowed & otherwise), degrees, etc.,
that's fine, too, but not if the intent is to imply that they somehow
"represent" me or any one other than themselves.  If support by IETF members
at-large is to be signified, then an online petition of some sort would be a
much better idea & much less deceptive.