The IETF - A follow up to the revolution article

As per the previous article I published, the thoughts contained here-in are my own and should not be attributed to any organisation or individual who does not indicate explicit agreement

One of the questions from the previous article (https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/time-revolution-andrew-alston/) that has been cropping up repeatedly in the last few hours is - what is the alternative.

Now, let me state this - firstly - I believe in the bottom up approach - and I believe that if the bottom up approach fails - it is a failure of the very thing which made the internet into the global phenomenon it is today. I believe that over the years - the IETF has performed an extremely valuable function - and I take nothing away from the IETF for that. I also believe that there are many sections of the IETF that function very well - it is not all bad.

That being said - I believe that there are some fundamental problems which over time have become more clear. We have seen the evolution of corporate governance over the years - and perhaps its time we take a very long hard look at the governance within the IETF - in an effort to deal with conflicts of interest - with bias - with potential dominance by a single party. So - I sat thinking about it - and came up with some ideas. I am not saying these ideas are perfect - and there may be many more - I would welcome comments and thoughts on them, and I would welcome additions to this list of ideas.

But - here are things that I think could improve the situation.

a.) I do not believe that the IETF should be chaired by an individual from the same employer as the area directors and working group chairs - it creates potential conflict - or at the very least the perception of potential conflict and bias - real or imagined

b.) The appeals process is flawed - an appeal from the floor should be handled by a third body entirely removed from the area directors and working group chairs. Any member of the appeal committee who works for the same organisation as either the working group chair, the responsible area director, or the appellant should also be forced to recuse themselves from the consideration of an appeal

c.) Area directors should be prohibited from appointing working group chairs that work for the same organisation as themselves. This creates potential conflict situations and perceptions of bias - real or imagined.

d.) There needs to be an appeal process to deal with actions not taken - in addition to the appeal process for actions taken. This allows appeal against stonewalling when chairs refuse to put consensus calls to the floor etc without adequate reason.

e.) The recall of working group chairs should not be at the sole discretion of the area director - there should be a process for recall of working group chairs just as there is a process for the recall of an area director

f.) The recall process around area directors needs drastic division. The process to my knowledge (and I am open to correction on this) has never been invoked. Why? Because strikes me as being designed to be impossible to invoke. The IETF states that everyone acts in their own individual capacities (more on this in a second) - yet that process flies in the face of it when it starts specifying things around affiliation. The IETF further says that work is done on the lists - yet - the recall process requires direct meeting participation and again - flies in the face of this. There are many very active participants of the IETF who have neither the resources nor the ability to attend meetings in person - and actions taken by rogue AD's can have a direct impact on those people as much as the people at a meeting. There are plenty ways to judge participation beyond physical present or attendance at meetings - and I'm sure we can find a way.

g.) The notion that every individual in the IETF is acting in their own personal capacity needs to be reviewed. Because - while its nice that the documents claim it - it is a fallacy and everyone knows it. The IETF, like any body, has corporate interests involved - both from the vendor side and the operator side - and if we do not acknowledge the fact that those interests are there - and deal with that fact - it creates a situation where corporate entities can flood the floor with "individuals" to rail road things through the process - while being able to have the ability to totally disclaim the actions of their employees - that removes accountability.

h.) I believe that there should be working group rotation in chairs. No chair should sit for longer than 2 years. There must always be two chairs for a working group - and if one leaves or is absent - a stand-in should be appointed pending the return of the normal chair. There should never be a situation where a working group chair can act unilaterally.

So - those are my thoughts about how things could potentially be improved - happy to hear comments, flames, further ideas etc.