pbaker at verisign.com
Wed Jun 25 08:58:45 CEST 2003
Count the votes as 12:2 or 12:9 there was a clear majority for OPT in and
the 7 who said no but were willing to stand asside for the sake of forward
However you count them a clear majority of the group believes that the
DNSSEC specs as currently defined are broken and are in need of fixing. Why
then are ANY drafts being forwarded to the IESG?
Ah that is because the establishment gets to choose what consensus is and
what consensus means. So a majority of the group believing that the spec is
undeployable does not matter because we the establishment get to choose the
questions that are asked.
The more salient point was the who was in the 12 and who was in the 9 and
the points being raised.
The 12 people were representing[*] mostly the large registries such as
dotCOM and dotDE and the software writers. Who did the 2 or 9 represent?
So we have a situation where a minority can hold up a standard, if that is
the establishment chooses to endorse them.
This 'consensus' simply a con game that allows the establishment to ignore
any decisions of the group they dislike and act whatever sweet way they
please and cite 'consensus' as the reason. If the establishment want to they
can interpret the WG outcome as consensus.
Forgive me if I decide not to respect decisions arrived at in that manner as
[*]Yes I know the B/S theory that only the establishment gets to speak from
authority but that is the whole IETF problem. A bunch of unelected cronies
can speak with the authority of their lofty perches while denying everyone
else the authority that comes from the responsibility of their profession.
That is a very convenient little fiction for the establishment.
Given the massive conflict of interest the IETF now has on everything DNS by
the ISOC having decided to become a DNS registrar competitor, the lack of
accountability is a significant issue.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Narten [mailto:narten at us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 10:07 AM
> To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
> Cc: problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: "trouble maker"
> "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker at verisign.com> writes:
> > But there was consensus in favor of OPT IN, the chair
> decided to abuse his
> > position and ignore it subsituting his own opinion. Read
> the WG mailing
> > lists.
> Yes, everyone should read the mailing list and form their own opinion.
> > There was a last call, 12 people were in favor, 2 opposed
> outright, 7 were
> > not in favor but prepared to accept the proposal.
> I note that you choose to interpret the 7, as the same as supporting,
> or not actually being opposed. That is not consistent with what those
> 7 actually said, as they actually did say no. That results in a rather
> different picture.
> > Actually there were in total four last calls. Basically the Chair's
> > strategy was to keep asking the question until he could pretend the
> > result was in his favor.
> Again, your interpretation of motive. It is not uncommon to have
> multiple LCs on the same document, to make sure that it has recieved
> adequate review and all the bugs are worked out. The ADs supported the
> chairs on this. At the end of the process, the WG agreed that the
> technical issues had been worked out and were understood, but there
> was still no consensus with going forward with the solution.
More information about the Problem-statement