Re: [wg-d] "Interim Measures"

["Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com>]

On 9 September 1999, Mikki Barry <ooblick@netpolicy.com> wrote:


>>Kent Crispin wrote:
>>It would be great if DNSO WGs could be made to function as
>>effectively as IETF WGs (and indeed I sent around a document based on
>>RFC2418 in hopes of motivating that), but some people, such as
>>yourself(*), seem bent on ditching the years of IETF experience.
>>It's odd, therefore, for you to hold up the IETF as a model.
>
>Perhaps that is because, in general, the IETF does not argue policy 
>matters and sticks to technical issues of what is most efficient and 
>what "running code" exists.  Unfortunately, the working groups are 
>MOSTLY arguing policy matters, and are generally not discussing the 
>technical issues at all.  Perhaps the working groups should stick to 
>technical issues, as ICANN itself should be doing, and leave policy 
>to those entities set up for policy - courts and governments.
>

*clapclapclap!*

Hear, hear!

I'm curious, however.  I freely admit that I've never participated in
an IETF WG.  It would seem to be that there's the potential for a
company to create a product that implements some process.  This 
company could then attempt to stuff the IETF WG to ensure that their
product's methods are the ones that end up being standardized.

It would further seem that this danger increases based on the money
at risk, or the size of the company in question, and its potential
alliances with other companies willing to act in a similar manner.

I mention all of this because this begins to approach the situation
I see WG-C to be in.  Since we have several people here who believe
the IETF procedures to be superior, I'd like to hear how this situation
has been handled in the past.  If it's never occurred, what processes
does the IETF have in place to ensure it can't occur?

Situations such as these could serve to inform our group.

-- 
Mark C. Langston	LATEST: ICANN refuses	Let your voice be heard:
mark@bitshift.org  to consider application for       http://www.idno.org
Systems Admin    Constituency status from organized http://www.icann.org
San Jose, CA      individual domain name owners      http://www.dnso.org