MAJOR ISSUE: "Concentration of power"

Basavaraj.Patil at Basavaraj.Patil at
Wed Jun 25 17:27:58 CEST 2003

>> As in any organization there needs to be a system of checks and
>> balances. At this time there does not seem to be any such for the
>> power of the IESG. 
>I don't think that's true. There are at least 4 "features" of the IETF
>proces that act as checks and balances on the IESG:

Okay... I guess that is true.

>1. The IAB as an advisory board for WG formation (and in practice for many
>major IESG decisions)

For WG formation, yes. What kind of *major* IESG decisions does the
IAB get involved? Are there instances of the IAB challenging and
over-ruling the IESGs decisions (other than in the case of
appeals). Does the IAB get involved only when a view is sought by the
IESG or does the IAB act proactively?

>2. The appeals process

The appeals process causes fear in some of being ostracized by the
IETF community. So not vey effective. Looking at the number of appeals
in the past and outcome, one would be discouraged to take the appeals
route. But I agree that the process provides the capability. I am not
sure how well this works in reality.

>3. The recall process (never tested, for some reason)
>4. Payback time, i.e. the NomCom process.

How? By providing input to the nomcom? Does this work?
And looking at the results of the last few nomcoms, I dont see this.

>Now, it's possible we need *more* checks and balances, of course.

Or *more effective* ones than what exists now :)

>   Brian


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list