IETF 74 Administrative Plenary, Wednesday, 25 March 2009


Russ Housley opens the Admin Plenary

NomCom process change discussion:
1. Introduction (see slides plenaryw-6)
2. Presentation by Spencer Dawkins of each draft followed by Q&A


draft-galvin-rfc3777bis Q&A:

Question about future iterations of the draft:
Does the draft need to be specific about the terms

Eric Rescorla (ekr): Proliferations of liaison might not be a good
idea.  Roles of the IAOC and the ISOC BoT liaisons are not clear.

Spencer: This is a reasonable concern. What the IAOC wants is to
provide a liasison if there are questions by the NomCom.

Fred Baker confirms: The IAOC would like to be available to the NomCom
if threre are questions.

Harald Alvestrand: doesn't agree with the premis of the document. Once
the RFC is out you cannot ask the NomCom to do anything with it until
the next RFC comes out. He doesn't agree with that. Doesn't think
there is a change needed.

Joel Halpern: You don't want people to serve on the NomCom and on
bodies the NomCom should serve to. Liaisons should be there to help
the NomCom. They have no vote. The ISOC liaison has a slightly
different role. Please read RFC 3777 to understand what the different
liaison rules are.

Leslie Daigle: concurs with the suggested order of the agenda and
suggests to move on.

ekr: still concerned - it is not irrelevant who is a liaison.

Cullen Jennings: reading current rfc and calls for the clarification
of the role of the liaisons to NomCom.

Bernard Aboba: agrees with Cullen - doesn't believe that the liasions
should participate the way it is suggested. It should be restricted to
a clear set of roles.

Bernie Hoeneisen: yes, RFC 3777 needs to be reviewed.

Harald: anything in the NomCom document has enough rat holes attached
to it.  One hour discussion is not enough to discuss this document.

Steve Hanna: thinks it is great to have these process discussions
during plenary sessions. Glad that we have not more than 40 minutes of
it, but glad that we have an oportunity to discuss this at all.

Hannes Tschofenig: was in favour of not discussing too many process
items - until he realised that this is effecting our work. He was on
the NomCom this year and realised that this is an important topic and
needs to be resolved. Some of the delays in the work are rooted in
process issues.  Appreciates the discussion.

Russ asks: who is in favour of moving the document forward?

many hums

Russ asks who is in favour of NOT moving it forward?

few hums

Russ asks who thinks it is necessary to clarify the roles of the
liaisons?

very many hums

Russ asks who thinks it is not necessary to clarify the role of the
liaisons.

very few hums


draft-dawkins-nomcom-dont-wait Q&A:

Russ ask who believes that the problem worth solving
(1. question on slide)

few hums

Russ aks who belives who does not believe this problem is not worth
solving.

no hums at all

Scott Bradner: The secretariat can do what is useful to facilitate the
process, and it should do that. But the terms of the sitting IESG, IAB
& IAOC members should be listed on the IESG, IAB and IAOC web pages.

Joel Halpern: wants to point out that the last question cannot be done
without significant changes.

Sam Hartman: is comfortable with outsourcing the call for volunteers
to someone else. But he is uncomfortable with outsourcing the call for
nominations. He is concerned that the IESG writes the descriptions for
the open IESG positions, the IAB writes the descriptions for the open
IAB positions, and the IAOC writes the descriptions for the open IAOC
positions.  He would like the NomCom to have an opportunity to push
back on these descriptions, but the schedule does not allow time to do
so.

Joel Jaeggli: hopes this concensus (see above) will be verified on the
list.

Russ: yes

Thomas Narten: be careful what 'admin start-up task' means.
If substantive judgement is needed, it cannot be automated.

Russ asks who believes the secretariat is the right place to hold the
token (2. question on slide).

most people agree (of those who care)

Russ asks who believes the secretariat is not the right place to hold
the token.

few disagree

Russ asks how many of those who just agreed think that the admin
support should be exercised at the discretion of the current NomCom
chair if known, and otherwise with the previous one?

many agree, very few disagree


draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist Q&A

Sam Hartman: asks how many people have received the short list of
willing nominees by the NomCom?

Many hands up (maybe half the audience).

Sam: seems we don't have much secrecy.

Spencer: yes, the list goes to 100s of people, but not to everbody.

David Black: clarification about the list?

Margaret Wasserman: it is a padded list

Jonne Soininen: this is an important change. This lists are
semi-public. Padding should be taken off. It becomes pretty clear who
is really running and who isn't when people talk to each other.

Margaret: we have a list that many people know about, but the ones
that try to be true about waht they promised when they saw it, are not
allowed to talk about ut. That is not very healthy. Why do we have to
keep it secret if it goes to that many people already.

Applause.

Leslie Daigle: simply removing the fig leave will not solve the
problem.  Argues that this would push us into a different position. If
there would be a more open lobbying allowed, people will behave
differently.  If you want to take away this restriction (to keep it
confidential), this will be quite a significant change.

Dave Crocker: we have the option to publishing the list, but still not
allow to lobby. Critisism and feedback should be valuable. 

Bernie Hoeneisen: suggests to allow the NomCom to include padding at
their own discretion.

Bob Hinden: it seems to be a secret that everyone knows about it.  He
thinks that the positive effects outweigh the negative ones and
suggests to go ahead and do this change.

Ted Hardie: you have the wrong problem. This is symptomatic of a
bigger problem - the old boys network problem: how the pool of
volunteers is handled right now, eliminates a certain group of
people. Believes that the NomCom process has to be changed such that
it doesn't require physical presence at meetings.

Ole Jacobsen: points out an inconcistency: For selection of IAOC
members, the IESG publishes a list of "people who have agreed to
serve" and then asks the community to send comments, whereas as the
NomCom candidates are not public. I was a candidate for the appointed
IAOC position while simultaneously serving on the NomCom which
effectively meant (after the announcement was made) that I helped
appoint my colleague on the IAOC.

Harald: this discussion has not been announced to the ietf list.  This
needs a solid discussion, and I'm looking forward to seeing the
announcement.

Ralph Dromes: We are presented with binary choices that are not really
binary choices.  It might have other side effects to change the
NomCom process.

John Klensin: agrees with most people. This is trying to change one
element of the process without looking at the entrire system. This is
just changing one small piece and hoping it has no negative side
effects.

Russ asks who believes we should open an unpadded willing-to-serve
nominee list?

very many hums

Russ asks who is opposed?

few hums

Russ asks who believes that we need to do anything that describes what
is acceptable nominee behaviour.

many hums

Russ asks who doesn't believe this is necessary?

a few more hums



Management Plenary 

Host Presentation

Pradeep Sindhu, Founder, CTO and Vice Chairman oif Juniper
welcomes the IETF audience and introduces a presentation 
he gives on Thursday.

Russ hands a plaque to him to thank him.


Reporting
- IETF Chair Report (see plenaryw-13)
- NOC Report (Morgan Sackett) (see plenaryw-9)
- IAOC Chair & IAD Reports (see plenaryw-11)

James Polk: is concerned that people from the US cannot attend
the next two meetings (because they are outside the US...).  And this
will have impact on the NomCom requirements.

Jonne: understands that this is a concern. But there are also many
people from outside the US. However, understands that 50% of the IETF
participants are from North America. Is aware of the economic
situation. We have to make a judgement call on this.


- Trust Chair Report (Ed Juskevicius) (plenaryw-10)
- NomCom Chair Report (Joel Halpern) (plenaryw-0)


Dealing with Patents at IETF (Scott Bradner, Jorge Contreras)
(see slides plenaryw-1)


Recognition of Jim Bound

There were standing ovation for Jim Bound for everything he did at
the IETF. Russ: It is a real shame that at the age of 58 he is no
longer with us.


Thank Outgoing IESG and IAOC Members


Introduce Incoming IAOC Members


IAOC Q&A:

Eric Rescorla (ekr): regarding IPR and disclosure: if you are
participating in WG A and this might affect work in WG B, you don't
have to disclose it. Is this is correct?

Spencer reads the words from section 6.1.2: needs to be participating
in an IETF WG discussion...

Scott Bradner: this is an important point. RFC 2026 is explicit about
this.  There is no ambiguity. But: we don't get to decided. It is a
court who gets to decide. If you got IPR and you decide not to
disclose it in an IETF discussion, this might come infront of a court
later.

Sam: The wording is: participate in *an* IETF discussion. 

ekr: there seems to be confusion about this and it needs to be clarified.

Fred Baker: whether the IETF requires you to disclose something is not
important in the later court case. If you fail to disclose IPR and
then build a standard based on that, then you can loose the IPR.

Dean Willis: what about patents of a client that are revealed to the
IETF participant under a non-disclosure agreement?

Scott Bradner: in this case he usually advises the client to
disclose. In some case they do, in some they don't.

Jorge Contreras: you only have the obligation to disclose YOUR patent,
not a client's patent.

Aaran Falk: change topic to meeting location and meeting costs.  You
did not want to raise the meeting fee to keep it affordable.  But you
change meeting location, so that it will be more expensive for more
than half of the people in the room. It might be interesting to find
out more about where people are coming from who participate in WGs
remotely.

Russ: there is a policy on this: over a 2 year period there will be 3
meetings in North America, 2 in Europe, 1 in Asia. If we move the Atlanta
meeting to Canada (for visa reasons), we follow this policy. If we move
it to Asia, it might be different. But it also depends on where we can
find a host and a sponsor.

Fred: understand Aaron's point, but we also have to be fair to people
from other regions.

Bob Hinden: there are a lot of tradeoffs to be made. Also need to make
sure we have enough lead-time to book hotel etc.

Aaron: maybe we should do a poll how many people are planning to
attend Stockholm and Hiroshima.

Jonne: it turns out that the visa issue in the US is such that it
permanantly excludes people. Understands that 50% come from North
America.  The other side of the coin is that 50% is not coming from
North America and for them this is always an international travel 
(and thanks to global markets the economy is bad everywhere).

David Black: maybe look at geographical spread of WG participants,
document contributors etc.

Ted Hardie: some of the nominated candidates turned down their
nomination. Did they say why (financial reasons)?

Joel Halpern: very few of the people were clear about their motivation
why they turned down. Some did say that they don't have the financial
support to serve. But this has been a problem before (not only since
the finacial crisis).

Greg Daley: making it easier for people from the US perpetuates the
fact that they get better jobs etc.

Ross Callon: Thanks Joel Halpern for a great job as NomCom chair.

Applause.


Ross: as a participant from the US (Boston), somewhat embarassed, that
there are people who cannot get visa and participate.  I have been at
the IETF meetings to Philadelphia, Canada etc.  no problem for him to
attend. If going to Canada helps people to attend, we should try do
that. Understands that this also depends on finding a host.

Bob: yes, we are trying to balance all this.Not everyone will be happy.

Johnathan Lennox: When a patent disclosure is made and then the patent
owner changes their name, is a second disclosure necessary?

Jorge: it is the patent, not the company name.

Jonathan: often you have documents talking about use cases. If someone
has IPR on something like that (more an informational wording), what
is the obligation for that?

Scott Bradner: in general the rule is: if the IPR is necessary to
implement the technology, you should disclose it.

Jorge: agrees

Andrew Sullivan: different question for IAOC: inspired by the remarks
about amount of time people have to spend when serving the IETF.  We
have a current case of someone who seems again to be performing a
denial of service attack against the IETF.  We tried community
mechanisms to stop him, and they didn't work.  We're rapidly running
out of tech fixes for the problem.  So will we be forced back onto
legal measures, and has anyone given any thought to how they might
work?

Jorge: there are certain legal responses that we can take, but the
IAOC has to decide if they want to do that.

Russ: Jorge and I started to talk.

Eric Burger: We are not the US closed network club. Gives example of a
meeting that took place in various places in the US and also one in
Beijing. People were concerned that nobody would attend the Beijing
meeting. But in fact we had three times as many active
participants. It is is often cheaper to go to Europe than to go to
California for instance. We should not make it difficult for people
outside the US.  Be fair.

Dave Crocker: thought for discussion: in one of the WG meetings there
was besides jabber room and besides audio, also a virtual room that
was designed for people to sit in the room with presentations.  As
nice as face-to-face meetings are, if we have a problem with
attendance, and if there is no clear solution this, we should try to
have more virtual meetings and go to two meetings per year.

Russ: we are working on better facilities for remote participation. 

Barry Leiba: used video-conf, but what would have helped would have
been a direct audio support.


Introduce Incoming IESG Members


IESG Q&A

Pete Resnick: if you have two serious discussion in one plenary, you
have to skip the presentations. The NomCom issues were very important.
Some were very broad issues.

Russ said this was announced in the MN, but this was apparently not
minuted properly. Should have been announced on ietf-announce.

Russ: point taken. I will do better in the future.

Thomas Narten: tried to participate remotely and it is challenging. A
lot of the things that make it hard is cultural. Things like getting
slides out in time etc. Suggests to set up a design team to write down
some rules and behaviour to make remote participation easier.

Dave Crocker volunteers to lead this effort. Thomas Narten will
participate.

END - 4 minutes early ;-)