Re: [Geopriv] Irregularities with the GEOPRIV Meeting at IETF 68

In the email below, the GEOPRIV chairs express serious concerns about  
the process surrounding the GEOPRIV meeting at IETF 68 in Prague. In  
particular, they allege:

- That improper meetings occurred between the ADs and the working  
group participants and that this "potentially harmed the integrity  
and transparency of GEOPRIV and the IETF"

- That there was "the appearance that there may have been an attempt  
to manipulate IETF process to hold and predetermine the outcome of  
consensus calls" on the part of the Area Directors.

In the first place, the Area Directors take these concerns, and grave  
allegations, very seriously. Area Directors who manipulate schedules  
and agendas in order to predetermine the outcome of consensus calls  
should, in our opinion, be summarily recalled, and if the GEOPRIV  
working group chairs believe this transpired in IETF 68, we urge them  
to pursue such a recourse. While we speak to the particulars in  
detail below, in short we believe that our efforts before, during and  
after the GEOPRIV meeting at IETF 68 were limited to encouraging a  
set of participants to arrive at a consensus which was long overdue,  
and did not extend to steering said consensus in any particular  
direction. In this regard we do not believe we overstepped our  
bounds, either in the letter or the spirit of the process.

As indicated in my message of March 25, we agree with the GEOPRIV  
chairs that the hums taken in prague need to be confirmed on the  
mailing list. As we all know, the contents of a room in Prague are  
not equivalent to an IETF working group; only formal decisions of  
this mailing list are definitive for the working group. Too often  
working group minutes are published and completely ignored, which  
only leads to further discord down the road when participants resist  
that to which they are presumed to have assented. This is  
particularly important in this case because opinion in the room was  
so closely divided. So in the interests of making progress, please do  
review the results of Prague carefully!

To the particular concerns of the GEOPRIV chairs:

<> Agenda: The Area Directors did meet privately with members of the  
GEOPRIV working group prior to the meeting at IETF 68. Indeed, we met  
with as many stakeholders as possible, specifically to ascertain how  
the group could move forward on a set of contentious issues which had  
been unresolved for some time. In the course of these meetings we  
solicited input on how progress could be made at the meeting, and  
strongly encouraged working group members to find a path to  
consensus. We came to believe that focusing on core issues that were  
impeding progress, such as the longstanding disagreement on an HTTP- 
based Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol (henceforth L7LCP)  
rather than ancillary issues like location signing, would be the best  
use of working group facetime.

While it is certainly true that the Area Directors knew they wanted  
to use the agenda time in GEOPRIV to make progress on core issues, if  
necessary at the expense of existing agenda items, there was no  
concrete agenda to that effect privately circulated prior to the  
meeting, verbally or in writing, to our knowledge. In fact, the  
agenda was bashed at the start of the GEOPRIV meeting by a  
participant, albeit one whose counsel on making progress the Area  
Directors had sought prior to the meeting. Critically, that agenda  
bash was vetted by the room, as any other agenda bash would be - this  
was not a change made by fiat of the Area Directors. We strongly  
believe that there was a will in the room to prioritize and resolve  
the issues which were bashed onto the agenda. We furthermore took  
specific hums about the preparedness of the group to make decisions  
about these issues, which under the circumstances were required to  
proceed.

<> Scheduling: There certainly were irregularities with the  
scheduling of the GEOPRIV meeting at IETF 68. That much said,  
scheduling the meeting track for the RAI Area is infamous, and last  
minute changes in timeslot are hardly unheard of (we had a similar  
one at the previous IETF). In this instance, the scheduling problem  
was ultimately caused by the unavailability of working group chairs.  
Two of the three GEOPRIV chairs, and one of the two SPEERMINT chairs,  
were unable to attend IETF 68 at all. It transpired that the  
SPEERMINT chair who could attend was unable to make the SPEERMINT  
timeslot due to a family obligation elsewhere in the world. As the  
GEOPRIV chairs note below, Henning Schulzrinne had previously been  
identified as a stand-in co-chair for GEOPRIV. We were thus left with  
the prospect of seeing SPEERMINT go forward with no available chairs,  
versus GEOPRIV going forward with at least one previously identified  
stand-in chair. We thus made a last minute decision to find the  
lesser of two evils by swapping the timeslots of the groups. This was  
a decision made at the last minute to find the lesser of two evils.  
We certainly didn't anticipate all of the ramifications this change  
would have in terms of attendance, and in retrospect, we may not have  
made the most best choice. The choice was not, however, motivated by  
a desire to prevent participants from attending either meeting.

<> Consensus calls: There were indeed quite a few hums taken in the  
GEOPRIV room in Prague. In fact, the manner in which the meeting was  
run with regard to hums was not typical for this group - hums were  
used liberally to hone in on areas where there was, and was not,  
consensus. That much said, not all of the hums were consensus calls  
on working group issues; quite a few hums were also taken on how we  
should proceed, for example (taken from the minutes):
- HUM : Are you informed enough to make this choice
- HUM: Is it important to solve that today
- HUM: Will the group accept a plurality for the decision?

This last hum in particular represented an unusual step, as the  
GEOPRIV chairs note. It was a step recommended by the author of  
RFC3929 (a document on "alternative decision making processes for  
consensus-blocked decisions") when we asked him how we might proceed.  
We resorted to this step because the room felt (based on a previous  
hum) that it was important to walk away from the meeting with a  
resolution. To one particular point:


> Cullen Jennings both called the consensus
> and cast the last and tie-breaking vote in the room.
>

We feel it is important to clarify that Cullen Jennings did not call  
the consensus in the room. Rather, both Cullen and Ted Hardie were  
independently counting the tallies for the plurality in the room (two  
counters were used for redundancy, with the side effect that  
presumably we eliminated any chance of partiality); it was in fact  
Jon Peterson as chair who called the consensus, on the basis of those  
reported tallies. Furthermore, although Cullen Jennings did cast a  
vote when the count in the room was completed and discovered to  
result in a tie, this was not the tie-breaking vote for the purposes  
of determining consensus. In fact, votes from the Jabber room  
determined the plurality, and the resulting tally did not favor the  
option for which Cullen had voted. To the charge that


> one of the hums was called on a question not described
> in an existing Internet-Draft.
>

That can be said of all of the process listed hums above. We aren't  
aware that process constrains us to make hums solely related to  
questions within existing Internet-Drafts.

Cullen Jennings
Jon Peterson
RAI Area Directors



On Apr 17, 2007, at 8:06 PM, Randall Gellens wrote:

> All,
>
> We, the co-chairs of the GEOPRIV working group, have received private
> messages of concern regarding the GEOPRIV meeting held at IETF 68 and
> the outcome of that meeting.  Upon initial investigation, we believe
> there were irregularities with the scheduling and agenda of the
> meeting that rise above the normal course of business within the
> IETF.  It is our opinion that at this time, it is best to bring
> notice of these irregularities to the working group in the interest
> of transparency and for the integrity of the IETF.
>
>
> AGENDA CHANGE
>
> The IETF process allows for agenda changes during meetings.  At the
> outset of the meeting, the agenda was changed substantially from the
> published agenda.  This change included removing the discussion of
> location signing and integrity and replacing it with an L7-LCP
> protocol consensus call.  However, evidence has arisen that the
> the Area Directors, Cullen Jennings and Jon Peterson, met privately  
> with
> some participants of the GEOPRIV working group to inform them
> of this agenda change.  Cullen Jennings is the Area Advisor to  
> GEOPRIV.
>
> If such meetings did occur, we believe them to be improper and to
> have potentially harmed the integrity and transparency of GEOPRIV and
> the IETF.  It is not proper for officiates of a working group to plan
> working group agenda changes and privately inform only select group
> participants.  Doing so disadvantages participants of the working
> group who have not been advised of this change.  This is especially
> true for this particular meeting as the agenda change precipitated 15
> hums during the meeting.
>
>
> SCHEDULE CHANGE
>
> As noted ahead of time, two of the three co-chairs, Andy and Allison,
> were unable to attend IETF 68.  The working group co-chairs planned
> for this in advance by finding a substitute acting chair, Henning
> Schulzrinne, to aid the one co-chair, Randy, who was able to
> attend.  This change was publicly announced on the mailing list
> before IETF 68.  However, the RAI Area Directors announced a last
> minute (Sunday) schedule change which created an unresolvable conflict
> for Randy.  The Area Directors executed this schedule change over the
> objections of the GEOPRIV co-chairs and in full knowledge of the
> conflict it created.  Additionally, the reason given was so that a
> working group co-chair for another working group could attend his
> meeting.
>
> As a result of the schedule change, the meeting was co-chaired by Jon
> Peterson, the other RAI Area Director.  Consequent to the agenda
> change regarding L7-LCP, Henning recused himself during the latter
> half the meeting, leaving Jon Peterson to solely run the meeting.
> During the meeting, a few participants expressed concerns regarding
> the agenda and schedule changes.  These concerns were dismissed by  
> Jon.
>
>
> CONSENSUS CALLS
>
> As noted above, the meeting resulted in an unusually high (15) number
> of consensus calls for GEOPRIV.  This includes the unusual decision to
> use an alternate consensus method of a plurality vote to choose  
> between
> two protocol proposals.  As noted in the raw minutes and the
> audio recording of the meeting, for the call that used the
> plurality voting method, Cullen Jennings both called the consensus
> and cast the last and tie-breaking vote in the room.  It should also
> be noted that one of the hums was called on a question not described
> in an existing Internet-Draft.
>
> The schedule change, the agenda change made known to a few select
> participants in advance, and the unusual sense-of-the-room hums,  
> together
> create at least the appearance that there may have been an attempt to
> manipulate the IETF process to hold and predetermine the outcome of
> consensus calls.  Even the appearance of such manipulation,  
> regardless of
> how well-intentioned the actions may have been, threatens the  
> integrity
> and openness of the IETF.
>
> The IETF relies on not just open, fare processes, but also
> transparency that good procedures are followed.  The irregularities
> are now on the record of the group, hopefully never to be repeated.
>
> In order to follow IETF process, all resolutions put forward during
> a working group meeting must be ratified on the working group's
> mailing list.  The chairs will shortly be sending messages to formally
> initiate consensus calls on the sense-of-the-room hums that were taken
> in Prague.  Since so many hums were put forth during the IETF 68
> meeting, we plan to send multiple messages to the working group
> mailing list seeking ratification of the proposals.
>
> Because of what happened in Prague, the chairs want to make very
> sure that the subsequent consensus calls are very open and
> non-coercive. We ask all working group participants to please pay
> close attention to these calls and respond appropriately.
>
> The first of these messages will be sent shortly.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> The geopriv co-chairs:
> 	- Andy
> 	- Allison
> 	- Randy
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf