ADs who are also WG chairs
pbaker at verisign.com
Thu Jun 26 20:13:13 CEST 2003
I believe this issue should be in the issues draft. I believe that it was
one of the major reasons for the DNSEXT process failure.
I did not feel that I had effective recourse to the AD when I was
complaining about the activities of a fellow AD.
Another issue was the chair's abuse of the DNS Directorate process to
supress the first WG consensus on OPTIN. According to 2026 only the AD is
allowed to consult the Directorate.
This had a measurable effect on the process. What SHOULD have happened the
first time round is that the WG consensus on the last call SHOULD have been
acknowledged by the chair. The draft SHOULD then have been passed to the AD
who COULD had consulted the Directorate if he choose.
The difference is absolutely critical here. The only reason that the second
third and fourth last calls could be made was that the original last call
result was suppressed. The dynamic of the group discussion would have been
completely different even if the draft had been returned by the IESG for
ammendment or further work.
Incidentally, this whole process has been raised repeatedly with the people
who are now complaining about me complaining. Each abuse of the process was
reported to the ADs at each stage. I have raised the issue with Harald on
numerous occasions. They had the power both to rectify the original abuses
and to prevent further abuses. Instead they decided to take the easy route
and sit by rather than challenge an AD who was also abusing his position as
More information about the Problem-statement