My current timeline for IASA BCP action
As you will probably be totally unsurprised to see, I'm pushing back the prospective dates for IASA BCP approval again. I think we are close, but not finished with the various clarifications and process polishing - and still don't have a workable consensus on the appeals issue. I also have some points from legal review to insert. So this is my current plan: - Today, Friday, January 21: Send out consensus? messages on all remaining issues from the tracker that are not currently in play. Suggest a plan for resolving the appeals issue. Send out for review input from legal review. - Tuesday, January 25: Issue version -05 of the BCP, with the changes we have agreed to at that time. This should be a version that the IETF can agree to and that the ISOC BoT can agree to, possibly pending resolution of known open issues (I hope there are none!) - Friday, January 28: If there are resolved issues that demand revision of text between Tuesday and Friday, issue version -06. This text should be the final text, and I will ask people to not suggest minor clarifications to that document, but rather consider whether or not they find the document as a whole acceptable for going forward or not. This is the time when polishing stops. I will also send a note to the IETF-announce list saying that the final version is now ready. - Thursday, February 3: Ask the IESG to formally approve the document. After this, if the IESG approves, no changes will be made at all, and I will send a message to the ISOC BoT asking them to approve the same document. On my previous timeline, January 12, I promised to ask the questions relative to the -04 draft: - Is the draft now good enough? - Do we need to reissue, lengthen or restart the Last Call? I think the first question got answered with a no - hence this plan, and the new revisions. Does anyone wish to argue that the second question need to be answered yes, or that there are other things that make this timetable an unreasonable one? Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
unsubscribe
*** This message is proprietary to Future Software Limited (FSL) and is intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged or confidential information and should not be circulated or used for any purpose other than for what it is intended. If you have received this message in error, please notify the originator immediately. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that you are strictly prohibited from using, copying, altering, or disclosing the contents of this message. FSL accepts no responsibility for loss or damage arising from the use of the information transmitted by this email including damage from virus. *** ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5
Sam Hartman wrote: Brian == Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Brian I think that is not really a concern. If someone has a Brian grievance that is serious enough for them to hire a lawyer Brian to make a complaint, no words in an RFC will stop them. But Brian the right words in an RFC will allow the IAD to say: Brian If you have any complaints, please contact the IAOC. [I Brian believe the current words allow this.] Brian and the IAOC to say, very rapidly, Brian We've looked at your complaint and concluded that it is Brian out of scope of RFC . Brian I don't think the current words allow that, because they Brian are very broad. We could fix this concern quite easily, by Brian adding Contract awards and employment decisions may not be Brian appealed using this process. I could not support that change. I think it is entirely reasonable to review a contract decision and conclude that procedures need to be changed. I think doing so regularly would be very problematic. Reviewing procedures is fine. Reviewing specific awards isn't, IMHO, which is all I intended my words to exclude. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5
Michael StJohns wrote: 3.5 Decision review In the case where someone questions a decision of the IAD or the IAOC, he or she may ask for a formal review of the decision. The request for review is addressed to the person or body that made the decision. It is up to that body to decide to make a response, and on the form of a response. Yes, but the stuff about decision review in Harald's text is pretty clear that its the person or body that's subject to review. Mike, yes, this text is problematic. But it isn't in the draft. I don't find the text in the actual -04 draft anywhere near as problematic, apart from the point I am arguing with Sam in my previous note. Brian At 04:10 AM 1/20/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Michael StJohns wrote: At a minimum, I'd explicitly prohibit review of the IADs actions by any body except the IAOC - direct the review to the IAOC only. But there is nothing in draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-04 suggesting that anybody except the IAOC can review the IAD's actions, and the stuff about decision review in section 3.4 is explicitly about the IAOC. It's also very clear from sections 3.1 and 3.2 that IAD reports to the IAOC. So I see no need for a text change. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5
--On fredag, januar 21, 2005 11:49:04 +0100 Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, but the stuff about decision review in Harald's text is pretty clear that its the person or body that's subject to review. Mike, yes, this text is problematic. But it isn't in the draft. I don't find the text in the actual -04 draft anywhere near as problematic, apart from the point I am arguing with Sam in my previous note. I'm afraid I'm beating a dead horse even deader, but. my proposed text was: 3.5 Decision review In the case where someone questions a decision of the IAD or the IAOC, he or she may ask for a formal review of the decision. The request for review is addressed to the person or body that made the decision. It is up to that body to decide to make a response, and on the form of a response. The IAD is required to respond to requests for a review from the IAOC, and the IAOC is required to respond to requests for a review of a decision from the IAB or from the IESG. If members of the community feel that they are unjustly denied a response to a request for review, they may ask the IAB or the IESG to make the request on their behalf. Answered requests for review and their responses are made public. What part of that text makes it pretty clear that its the person or body that's subject to review, as Mike says? Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: gen-art: (Extra) Review of draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-04.txt
Thanks Elwyn! One quick comment: --On torsdag, januar 20, 2005 16:16:02 + Elwyn Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: S3, para 3 (also S3.2): Is it a matter of being mealy mouthed, or does the IAOC sub-committee (effectively) not have firing as well as hiring powers over the IAD? The phrase This same committee is responsible for setting the IAD's initial compensation, reviewing the performance of the IAD periodically, and determining any changes to the IAD's employment and compensation. was definitely intended to include the case of determining that the IAD's employment status was changed to unemployed. Do we need more brutal language to say this? Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF surplus
Fred, there are multiple ways of analyzing history - what you say is certainly true if you include the cost of the RFC Editor, but do not consider the contributions from the ISOC Platinum program to the standards pillar to be designated donations in support of the IETF. But that's water under the bridge I agree with you that the current document does not require the IASA to try to accumulate a surplus in its account, and my expectation is that it will not do so - so the IETF is looking to ISOC to provide operating stability for the IASA function. So I think we agree on the plan going forward from here. Harald --On 20. januar 2005 10:01 -0800 Fred Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Our point is this. We believe that the objective of the IETF should be, at this point, to ensure that it has operating stability from a funding perspective, not that it generate a surplus that it in fact never had. ISOC sees itself as a partner with IETF - giving to IETF in the form of money and other services, and accepting from IETF in the form of wisdom and support on public policy and other issues. For its part, ISOC is prepared to continue doing the necessary work - which it has been doing for perhaps a decade - to make the continued financial position of the IETF secure. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: --On fredag, januar 21, 2005 11:49:04 +0100 Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, but the stuff about decision review in Harald's text is pretty clear that its the person or body that's subject to review. Mike, yes, this text is problematic. But it isn't in the draft. I don't find the text in the actual -04 draft anywhere near as problematic, apart from the point I am arguing with Sam in my previous note. I'm afraid I'm beating a dead horse even deader, but. my proposed text was: 3.5 Decision review In the case where someone questions a decision of the IAD or the IAOC, he or she may ask for a formal review of the decision. The request for review is addressed to the person or body that made the decision. It is up to that body to decide to make a response, and on the form of a response. The IAD is required to respond to requests for a review from the IAOC, and the IAOC is required to respond to requests for a review of a decision from the IAB or from the IESG. If members of the community feel that they are unjustly denied a response to a request for review, they may ask the IAB or the IESG to make the request on their behalf. Answered requests for review and their responses are made public. What part of that text makes it pretty clear that its the person or body that's subject to review, as Mike says? That's how I read the 2nd sentence. But I can live with this text, even though I prefer what is in the -04 draft. The point about exempting contract awards and employment decisions is still on my list, though. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5
Brian clarifies: Reviewing procedures is fine. Reviewing specific awards isn't, IMHO, which is all I intended my words to exclude. I agree with Brian - allowing the review of specific awards could easily cause the DoS attack that I've been warning against Scott ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Consensus? #789: Section 5.6 - Financial reserves
The text under discussion reads: The IASA expects ISOC to build and provide that operational reserve, through whatever mechanisms ISOC deems appropriate: line of credit, financial reserves, meeting cancellation insurance, and so forth. In the long term, financial reserves are preferable; it should be a goal for ISOC to reach this level of reserves within 3 years after the creation of the IASA. The discussion so far seems to indicate that the IETF is not interested in any kind of control over how that reserve is built, only in seeing that it exists and is adequate. In particular, the sentence financial reserves are preferable was written as if it was a truism, not an attempt to force ISOC's hand. In this case, saying less seems to be a Good Idea. So picking up a version suggested by Jeff Hutzelman, I suggest that we replace this paragraph with the shorter version: The IASA expects ISOC to build and provide that operational reserve, through whatever mechanisms ISOC deems appropriate. Note that this also lost the 3-year goal. Is that OK? Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
No change needed? #790: Section 2.2 - In-kind donations
The section under discussion reads: 6. There shall be a detailed public accounting to separately identify all funds available to and all expenditures relating to the IETF and to the IASA, including any donations, of funds or in-kind, received by ISOC for IETF-related activities. In-kind donations shall only be accepted at the direction of the IAD and IAOC. The question was what the purpose of the last line was. The discussion seems to have revealed that this is good business practice (don't accept gifts of white elephants), and there's no real need to change the text. OK? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Minor issue, no change? #791: Section 2.2 - Editorial ('attempt to ensure')
Margaret wrote: 8. The IASA, in cooperation with ISOC, shall ensure that sufficient s/shall ensure/shall attempt to ensure/ ?? reserves exist to keep the IETF operational in the case of unexpected events such as income shortfalls. I think this should remain as-is. There are other principles in the list where it's possible to imagine that one could fail (7 on IPR, for instance). But I won't lose any sleep over it either way. Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Minor resolution: #793: Section 7 - transition of funds
Margaret said: Any balance in the IASA accounts, any IETF-specific intellectual property rights, and any IETF-specific data and tools shall also transition to the new entity. Other terms shall be negotiated between the IETF and ISOC. Just a nit, perhaps... It is my understanding that ISOC can only transition funds to the new entity if the new entity is a 501(3)(c) corporation whose goals are in alignment with ISOCs charitable, scientific or educational purposes, or something like that. I don't know all of the details, but it might be good to add To the extent allowed by law, (or something similar) at the beginning of the first sentence above. This seems reasonable. Lynn pointed out that ISOC can actually pay money to many different things, but the consequences depend on the details. So the new text becomes: To the extent allowed by law, any balance in the IASA accounts, any IETF-specific intellectual property rights, and any IETF-specific data and tools shall also transition to the new entity. Other terms shall be negotiated between the IETF and ISOC. OK? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5
Several people have used the term DoS attack in relation to a review/appeals process as if that were a well-defined and well-understood phenomenon, and I don't understand what it means. Here is one example that doesn't make sense to me: At 8:39 AM -0500 1/21/05, Scott Bradner wrote: Brian clarifies: Reviewing procedures is fine. Reviewing specific awards isn't, IMHO, which is all I intended my words to exclude. I agree with Brian - allowing the review of specific awards could easily cause the DoS attack that I've been warning against None of the versions of the text that we are looking at (the current BCP, Harald's, mine, Scott Brim's...) indicate that a request for review of an IAD or IAOC decision could result in: (1) reversing a legally binding decision, (2) forcing the IAOC to stop other work until the review is handled, (3) delaying the execution of the decision, (4) having any decision of the IAD/IAOC overturned by anyone other than the IAOC, or (4) anything else that would affect the operation of IASA. So, the only DoS attack I can imagine is having such a large volume of review requests that handling them in any reasonable way sucks up all of the resources of the IAOC... I attempted to address that form of attack by indicating that it is up to the IAOC to determine what level of processing a given review request requires. If the same person sends thousands of requests, I assume that the appropriate level of review for those requests would be zero. And, if that were escalated, the IESG would concur. So, where do the DoS attack come in? Margaret ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5
Margaret sez: None of the versions of the text that we are looking at (the current BCP, Harald's, mine, Scott Brim's...) indicate that a request for review of an IAD or IAOC decision could result in: (1) reversing a ... if all of the proposed text actually said (as the -04 text does) that awards can not be overturned then there is not a DoS threat - but Harald's suggested wording does not do that Scott ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5
ps - I'm not sure that its all that useful to be able to appeal/review awards if they can not be overturned - apealing or reviewing the process that was followed is fine but appealling the actual award seems broken this may seem like a wording nit but I think it would properly set expectations Scott ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Resolution? #787 terminology - in particular ISOC Standards Pillar
I generally agree with Tom and Carl. The community needs visibility in to the IASA finances, sufficient to ensure that the IETF's money is spent on IETF-related activities with a reasonable level of prudence. I don't think that our BCP needs to specify a reporting methodology that the IAD/IAOC should use to provide that visibility... Today, we are looking at organizing the IASA as a cost center within ISOC, and it seems likely that the visibility that the IETF needs can be provided in the form of a PL statement for the costs center and a summary of its general ledger accounts. That's fine, but do we need to say it here? There is a section of the BCP that says: Within the constraints outlined above, all other details of how to structure this activity within ISOC (whether as a cost center, a department, or a formal subsidiary) shall be determined by ISOC in consultation with the IAOC. It seems inconsistent with this section to mandate elsewhere that the IASA will be organized as a cost center, that we will use cost center accounting, that the financial reports will include a PL for the cost center, that we will publish the general ledger accounts, etc. These are details that, IMO, the IAOC and ISOC should work out (and change as needed to meet the needs of IASA and the IETF community) between themselves. Margaret At 11:43 AM -0800 1/20/05, Carl Malamud wrote: Hi - I agree with Tom that this is kind of confused, and I think there is some potential fast and loose use of the language of accountancy. :)) I think the vague term accounts is just fine for the purpose we are engaged in. I think all we're trying to say is that the ietf community would like to see a periodic summary of the IASA accounts in the form of standard financial statements that reflect the income, expenses, assets, and liabilities of that cost center. I don't think we need to get into general ledgers and all that other technical accounting talk. Regards, Carl Inline, Tom Petch - Original Message - From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ietf@ietf.org Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 3:24 PM Subject: Resolution? #787 terminology - in particular ISOC Standards Pillar In #787, Margaret raised a couple of terminology questions related to the terms: - IASA Accounts - IETF accounts - ISOC Standards pillar In discussion, it seems clear that IETF accounts is a mistake, and should be changed to IASA accounts wherever it occurs. IASA accounts should probably be changed to IASA general ledger accounts - to have a recognizable term from bookkeeping instead of the rather vague term accounts. general ledger is indeed a recognizable term from bookkeeping but it is not the one I would want to see. Accountancy (as taught to me) divides up the ledger into accounts, and yes, acccounts is also a recognizable term. The ledger is typically divided up into (traditionally physical separate books) - purchases/creditors ledger - sales/debtors ledger - general/impersonal ledger - private ledger so seeing only the general ledger gives me an incomplete, perhaps misleading view of the financial state of an organisation. In fact, I would want to see the private ledger first since it contains profit and loss, trading, drawings etc. More generally, I would want to see the IASA accounts (an accountancy technical term) in the ledger (another accountancy technical term). Or do these terms change meaning as they go west across the Atlantic? snip ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Consensus? #789: Section 5.6 - Financial reserves
Harald suggests: The IASA expects ISOC to build and provide that operational reserve, through whatever mechanisms ISOC deems appropriate. looks good to me Scott ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Consensus? #789: Section 5.6 - Financial reserves
At 2:36 PM +0100 1/21/05, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: So picking up a version suggested by Jeff Hutzelman, I suggest that we replace this paragraph with the shorter version: The IASA expects ISOC to build and provide that operational reserve, through whatever mechanisms ISOC deems appropriate. Note that this also lost the 3-year goal. Is that OK? Works for me. Margaret ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: No change needed? #790: Section 2.2 - In-kind donations
Harald points out and suggests The question was what the purpose of the last line was. The discussion seems to have revealed that this is good business practice (don't accept gifts of white elephants), and there's no real need to change the text. agree (he says agreeing to his own words :-) ) Scott ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Minor issue, no change? #791: Section 2.2 - Editorial
I agree with Harald - lets leave it as-is Margaret wrote: 8. The IASA, in cooperation with ISOC, shall ensure that sufficient s/shall ensure/shall attempt to ensure/ ?? reserves exist to keep the IETF operational in the case of unexpected events such as income shortfalls. I think this should remain as-is. There are other principles in the list where it's possible to imagine that one could fail (7 on IPR, for instance). But I won't lose any sleep over it either way. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
re: Minor resolution: #793: Section 7 - transition of funds
Harald suggests To the extent allowed by law, any balance in the IASA accounts, any IETF-specific intellectual property rights, and any IETF-specific data and tools shall also transition to the new entity. Other terms shall be negotiated between the IETF and ISOC. works for me Scott ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Legal review results 1: Intellectual property
In this and a few later messages, I'm relaying comments from Jorge Contreras, the IETF's pro bono legal counsel. 1. Intellectual Property. I think I understand the reason for including an explicit requirement that IP created in support of IETF activities be usable by IETF on a perpetual basis. The way this concept is expressed, however, should probably be adjusted slightly to reflect the way IP rights are actually conveyed and licensed. Old Text (Sec. 3.1, paragraphs 5-6) The IAD is responsible for ensuring that all contracts give IASA and the IETF the perpetual right to use, display, distribute, reproduce, modify and create derivatives of all data created in support of IETF activities. This is necessary to make sure the IETF has access to the data it needs at all times, and to ensure that the IASA can change contractors as needed without disrupting IETF work. Whenever reasonable, if software is developed under an IASA contract it should should remain usable by the IETF beyond the terms of the contract. Some ways of achieving this are by IASA ownership or an open source license; an open source license is preferable. The IAD shall decide how best to serve the IETF's interests when making such contracts. Suggested new text (Sec. 3.1, paragraphs 5-6) (A) If a contract entered into by ISOC on behalf of IASA and/or the IETF (an IASA Contract) provides for the creation, development, modification or storage of any data (including, without limitation, any data relating to IETF membership, documents, archives, mailing lists, correspondence, financial records, personnel records and the like) (Data), then the IAD shall ensure that such contract grants to ISOC the perpetual, irrevocable right, on behalf of IASA and IETF, to use, display, distribute, reproduce, modify and create derivatives of such Data. ISOC will permit IASA and its designee(s) to have sole control and custodianship of such Data, and ISOC will not utilize or access such Data in connection with any ISOC function other than IETF without the written consent of the IAD. (B) If an IASA Contract provides for the creation, development or modification of any software (including, without limitation, any search tools, indexing tools and the like) (Developed Software) then the IAD shall, whenever reasonable and practical, ensure that such contract either (a) grants ownership of such Developed Software to ISOC, or (b) grants ISOC a perpetual, irrevocable right, on behalf of IASA and IETF, to use, display, distribute, reproduce, modify and create derivatives of such Software (including, without limitation, pursuant to an open source style license). It is preferred that Developed Software be provided and licensed for IASA and IETF use in source code form. ISOC will permit IASA and its designee(s) to have sole control and custodianship of such Developed Software, and ISOC will not utilize or access such Developed Software in connection with any ISOC function other than IETF without the written consent of the IAD. The foregoing rights are not required in the case of off-the-shelf or other commercially-available software that is not developed at the expense of ISOC. (C) If an IASA Contract relates to the licensing of third party software, the IAD shall ensure that such license expressly permits use of such software for and on behalf of IASA and/or IETF, as applicable, and that such license is transferable in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 (Removability). In addition, the principle stated in 2.2(7) should be expanded to include software, as well as data. My biggest problem with this is size.. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Legal review 3: Legal advice
From Jorge: 3. Legal Advice. (Apologies if I sound biased about this one, but) Although the IAD and IASA have responsibility for negotiating and approving all contracts relating to IETF, there is no indication that they are expected or even encouraged to seek legal advice regarding these contracts. Given the unclear language of some of the historical IETF-related contracts, I think it would be advisable to set forth a principle that the IAD should seek legal advice regarding any material contract that he/she negotiates. This would exclude routine contracts for things like office services, but should definitely apply to the contracts with ISOC, IANA, ICANN, the RFC Editor, the conference organizer (whether it's CNRI, Fortec, or somebody else), and any contract that relates to the development of data, software or other IP. Moreover, I think that an express statement should be made that the IAD/IASA should obtain independent legal advice. That is, from legal counsel who are not ISOC's counsel. This will serve to reinforce the independence of IETF from ISOC. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Legal review 4: Minor editorial
Editorial Comments from Jorge: 4., 3rd paragraph below bulleted list: The 2-year term rule does not apply during the initial terms. Thus, this paragraph should start out saying Subject to paragraph 2 of Section 4.2, appointed members 5.5: I think that the 2nd sentence is not clear, as it uses the technical accounting term debited in a way that doesn't exactly say what I think it's supposed to. I would rewrite it as follows: Funds in IASA accounts shall be used solely to support IETF activities and for no other purposes. 7 (Transparency): While I understand the desire for transparency, there may be some contracts that contain items that are justifiably treated as confidential (such as individual performance rewards, terms of settlement of litigation). To address this point, I might add the following words at the end of the penultimate sentence: , subject to any reasonable confidentiality obligations approved by the IAD. (note from HTA: I appended the last point as a suggestion on the proposed resolution for #787) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Closing ticket 729 - check with accountants and legal
With the input resulting from discussions with Lynn Duval and Jorge Contreras, I suggest that we can now close ticket #729 - General - Check with accountants leagal advisors as done. Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Resolution? #787 terminology - in particular ISOC Standards Pillar
Hi Margaret - Maybe we agree, but I'm not sure. I used the following phrase: periodic summary of the IASA accounts in the form of standard financial statements that reflect the income, expenses, assets, and liabilities of that cost center. So, I agree with you that this doesn't have to say of that cost center and could easily say the IASA. But, when you say in the form of a PL statement, I get a little scared ... as you know from your periodic reviews of the ISOC overall finances, an income statement without a balance sheet doesn't make a lot of sense. While keeping implementation details out of the BCP is a good thing, I do think it is appropriate to get the general principle across: full visibility and transparency of the IASA activity through the use of regular reporting using standard financial statements that show the IETF community the income, expenses, assets, and liabilities of this particular activity. The general principle is that, because this is a community activity, we're all agreeing that more visibility than usual is appropriate here. That seems like a reasonable request/requirement, particularly given the past history of minimal reporting by the secretariat. Not your fault, I know, but this is a sensitive issue given the history and thus requires a little extra attention. Regards, Carl I generally agree with Tom and Carl. The community needs visibility in to the IASA finances, sufficient to ensure that the IETF's money is spent on IETF-related activities with a reasonable level of prudence. I don't think that our BCP needs to specify a reporting methodology that the IAD/IAOC should use to provide that visibility... Today, we are looking at organizing the IASA as a cost center within ISOC, and it seems likely that the visibility that the IETF needs can be provided in the form of a PL statement for the costs center and a summary of its general ledger accounts. That's fine, but do we need to say it here? There is a section of the BCP that says: Within the constraints outlined above, all other details of how to structure this activity within ISOC (whether as a cost center, a department, or a formal subsidiary) shall be determined by ISOC in consultation with the IAOC. It seems inconsistent with this section to mandate elsewhere that the IASA will be organized as a cost center, that we will use cost center accounting, that the financial reports will include a PL for the cost center, that we will publish the general ledger accounts, etc. These are details that, IMO, the IAOC and ISOC should work out (and change as needed to meet the needs of IASA and the IETF community) between themselves. Margaret At 11:43 AM -0800 1/20/05, Carl Malamud wrote: Hi - I agree with Tom that this is kind of confused, and I think there is some potential fast and loose use of the language of accountancy. :)) I think the vague term accounts is just fine for the purpose we are engaged in. I think all we're trying to say is that the ietf community would like to see a periodic summary of the IASA accounts in the form of standard financial statements that reflect the income, expenses, assets, and liabilities of that cost center. I don't think we need to get into general ledgers and all that other technical accounting talk. Regards, Carl Inline, Tom Petch - Original Message - From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ietf@ietf.org Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 3:24 PM Subject: Resolution? #787 terminology - in particular ISOC Standards Pillar In #787, Margaret raised a couple of terminology questions related to the terms: - IASA Accounts - IETF accounts - ISOC Standards pillar In discussion, it seems clear that IETF accounts is a mistake, and should be changed to IASA accounts wherever it occurs. IASA accounts should probably be changed to IASA general ledger accounts - to have a recognizable term from bookkeeping instead of the rather vague term accounts. general ledger is indeed a recognizable term from bookkeeping but it is not the one I would want to see. Accountancy (as taught to me) divides up the ledger into accounts, and yes, acccounts is also a recognizable term. The ledger is typically divided up into (traditionally physical separate books) - purchases/creditors ledger - sales/debtors ledger - general/impersonal ledger - private ledger so seeing only the general ledger gives me an incomplete, perhaps misleading view of the financial state of an organisation. In fact, I would want to see the private ledger first since it contains profit and loss, trading, drawings etc. More generally, I would want to see the IASA accounts (an accountancy technical term) in the ledger (another accountancy technical term). Or do these terms
Re: Resolution? #787 terminology - in particular ISOC Standards Pillar
Broadly I trust ISOC to do what is right and want a form of words that will keep me informed as to how we are doing financially. I endorse Harald's change from IETF to IASA but jibbed at general ledger as having a technical meaning that to me was too limited. Going back to sccounts, as Carl suggested, I am happy with. If we say profit and loss, then two caveats. A minor one, again from the terminology of accountancy, is that some enitities are regarded as not having profit and loss account but something similar with another name eg income and expenditure. I am uncertain what accounts a cost center has in ISOC; if it has a profit and loss account, then no problem. But a bigger issue is that the profit and loss account is only half or a third of the story. There must be a balance sheet with it especially as we talk of building a reserve, be it of whatever sum and built over whatever timescale. Only a balance sheet will measure progress against this objective. So if you include the term profit and loss, you should include balance sheet as well. The other part is cash flow. Many a business with a healthy profit and loss account and a healthy balance sheet has ceased trading because it ran out of cash; it could not pay its bills. This was the fate of many dot coms. It might be ours since we appear not to balance our books directly and depend on donations coming to balance our books; delayed donations equals insolvency. So cash flow is a nice to have. Or as Carl said we stay with (IASA) accounts and trust ISOC to produce what is right. Tom Petch - Original Message - From: Margaret Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Carl Malamud [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tom Petch [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 3:20 PM Subject: Re: Resolution? #787 terminology - in particular ISOC Standards Pillar I generally agree with Tom and Carl. The community needs visibility in to the IASA finances, sufficient to ensure that the IETF's money is spent on IETF-related activities with a reasonable level of prudence. I don't think that our BCP needs to specify a reporting methodology that the IAD/IAOC should use to provide that visibility... Today, we are looking at organizing the IASA as a cost center within ISOC, and it seems likely that the visibility that the IETF needs can be provided in the form of a PL statement for the costs center and a summary of its general ledger accounts. That's fine, but do we need to say it here? There is a section of the BCP that says: Within the constraints outlined above, all other details of how to structure this activity within ISOC (whether as a cost center, a department, or a formal subsidiary) shall be determined by ISOC in consultation with the IAOC. It seems inconsistent with this section to mandate elsewhere that the IASA will be organized as a cost center, that we will use cost center accounting, that the financial reports will include a PL for the cost center, that we will publish the general ledger accounts, etc. These are details that, IMO, the IAOC and ISOC should work out (and change as needed to meet the needs of IASA and the IETF community) between themselves. Margaret At 11:43 AM -0800 1/20/05, Carl Malamud wrote: Hi - I agree with Tom that this is kind of confused, and I think there is some potential fast and loose use of the language of accountancy. :)) I think the vague term accounts is just fine for the purpose we are engaged in. I think all we're trying to say is that the ietf community would like to see a periodic summary of the IASA accounts in the form of standard financial statements that reflect the income, expenses, assets, and liabilities of that cost center. I don't think we need to get into general ledgers and all that other technical accounting talk. Carl Inline, Tom Petch - Original Message - From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ietf@ietf.org Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 3:24 PM Subject: Resolution? #787 terminology - in particular ISOC Standards Pillar In #787, Margaret raised a couple of terminology questions related to the terms: - IASA Accounts - IETF accounts - ISOC Standards pillar In discussion, it seems clear that IETF accounts is a mistake, and should be changed to IASA accounts wherever it occurs. IASA accounts should probably be changed to IASA general ledger accounts - to have a recognizable term from bookkeeping instead of the rather vague term accounts. general ledger is indeed a recognizable term from bookkeeping but it is not the one I would want to see. Accountancy (as taught to me) divides up the ledger into accounts, and yes, acccounts is also a recognizable term. The ledger is typically divided up into (traditionally physical separate books) - purchases/creditors
Re: Resolution? #787 terminology - in particular ISOC Standards Pillar
So, I agree with you that this doesn't have to say of that cost center and could easily say the IASA. But, when you say in the form of a PL statement, I get a little scared ... as you know from your periodic reviews of the ISOC overall finances, an income statement without a balance sheet doesn't make a lot of sense. You are correct, of course. Which may only underline the silliness of having a bunch of engineers specify the accounting details at this level. :-) While keeping implementation details out of the BCP is a good thing, I do think it is appropriate to get the general principle across: full visibility and transparency of the IASA activity through the use of regular reporting using standard financial statements that show the IETF community the income, expenses, assets, and liabilities of this particular activity. Yes. If we said this (and nothing about cost centers and general ledgers, etc.) I'd be happier. The general principle is that, because this is a community activity, we're all agreeing that more visibility than usual is appropriate here. That seems like a reasonable request/requirement, particularly given the past history of minimal reporting by the secretariat. Not your fault, I know, but this is a sensitive issue given the history and thus requires a little extra attention. Yes, I agree. Margaret ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legal review results 1: Intellectual property
Date: 2005-01-21 09:40 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] In this and a few later messages, I'm relaying comments from Jorge Contreras, the IETF's pro bono legal counsel. 1. Intellectual Property. I think I understand the reason for including an explicit requirement that IP created in support of IETF activities be usable by IETF on a perpetual basis. The way this concept is expressed, however, should probably be adjusted slightly to reflect the way IP rights are actually conveyed and licensed. Old Text (Sec. 3.1, paragraphs 5-6) [...] contract. Some ways of achieving this are by IASA ownership or an open source license; an open source license is preferable. The IAD shall decide how best to serve the IETF's interests when making such contracts. Suggested new text (Sec. 3.1, paragraphs 5-6) [...] ISOC will permit IASA and its designee(s) to have sole control and custodianship of such Developed Software, and ISOC will not utilize or access such Developed Software in connection with any ISOC function other than IETF without the written consent of the IAD. The foregoing rights are not required in the case of off-the-shelf or other commercially-available software that is not developed at the expense of ISOC. Verbosity aside, I don't believe that sole control and custodianship applies to open source software. I am not a lawyer, but the Old text seems not only more easily comprehended [I am reminded of Jonathan Swift's satirical look at lawyers in Gulliver's Travels, and dismayed that things haven't improved in 275 years] but seems to be considerably more favorable to open source software than the proposed new text; the latter appears to be heavily biased towards commercial software. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legal review results 1: Intellectual property
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: ... My biggest problem with this is size.. I think in the case of text resulting from legal review, that is not something we should worry about. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legal review 2: Trademarks
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: More from Jorge: 2. Trademarks. There has been a lot of discussion about ownership and maintenance of IETF-related trademarks. I would suggest that one of the IAD/IASA duties be to consider appropriate trademark protection for the IETF's identifying names (such as IETF, IRTF, etc.), and then oversee the prosecution and maintenance of such trademarks. This activity should be identified as part of the IASA budget. Good catch, but does it belong in the BCP? Seems like good advice to the IAOC. Batch ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legal review results 1: Intellectual property
On 1/21/2005 10:49, Bruce Lilly allegedly wrote: Verbosity aside, I don't believe that sole control and custodianship applies to open source software. I am not a lawyer, but the Old text seems not only more easily comprehended [I am reminded of Jonathan Swift's satirical look at lawyers in Gulliver's Travels, and dismayed that things haven't improved in 275 years] but seems to be considerably more favorable to open source software than the proposed new text; the latter appears to be heavily biased towards commercial software. I think Jorge's text is much better than what we had. It fills in gaps and eliminates ambiguities. IETF can still decide whether software developed for it should be made available on an open source basis, but that should be up to the IETF. Jorge's text makes that possible. Scott Brim ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Closing ticket 729 - check with accountants and legal
--On Friday, 21 January, 2005 15:47 +0100 Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With the input resulting from discussions with Lynn Duval and Jorge Contreras, I suggest that we can now close ticket #729 - General - Check with accountants leagal advisors as done. Harald, For whatever it is worth at this late date, the original proposal was that _in addition to_ checking with ISOC's financial people about what would work for them and with IETF counsel about what could be acceptable (I considered those a given, not an issue), a request be made to a selected few major organizational* supporters** of the IETF that they have senior-level financial and enterprise management people review the general organizational design and concepts, comment to us on their reactions, and make suggestions as appropriate. As Dave Crocker has commented on several occasions, few of us are expert and experienced in organizational design. With the greatest of respect and appreciation to Lynn and Jorge for their efforts, I don't believe either of them would identify themselves as primarily experts in that area either. Checking with people who really are expert is only the same level of prudence that I hope we always follow with technical standards. My impression was that there was some consensus that this was a good idea, or at least not harmful: in the worst case, we could ignore advice we didn't like and, had the review been initiated in a timely way, it would not have had any negative effect on the schedule. At this stage, initiating that sort of review would almost certainly have a negative schedule impact, so we had probably best drop it. But, before you close the ticket, I, and I think the community, would appreciate some explanation as to why the original suggestion was dropped or otherwise considered unnecessary. john * Working definition of supporter: an organization that is making a significant financial investment in the IETF by, e.g., ISOC platinum support, sending significant numbers of people who are actively participating in IETF's work to meetings, or equivalent. ** Working definition of major: big enough to actually have real financial departments (e.g., with a senior-level CFO and staff, not just a person or two) and organization management structure with layers of enterprise and departmental management and management-side executive staff. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Resolution? #787 terminology - in particular ISOC StandardsPillar
Ah ships in the night; yes, Carl, I think this is the best wording so far. Two queries in my mind. Looking at the ISOC Report 2003, I notice it uses revenue rather than income that you use; is there any hidden meaning in that? eg because it is incorporated as a nonprofit organization? And reading between the lines, perhaps I should be less trusting of ISOC so is it sufficient to say periodic summary? Is there any implication elsewhere of how often periodic is? I expect accounts at least every 12 months for any organisation, with them being more frequent for larger organisations, even every three months for some. Tom Petch Engineer (who is also his own accountant) - Original Message - From: Carl Malamud [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Margaret Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tom Petch [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 3:47 PM Subject: Re: Resolution? #787 terminology - in particular ISOC StandardsPillar Hi Margaret - Maybe we agree, but I'm not sure. I used the following phrase: periodic summary of the IASA accounts in the form of standard financial statements that reflect the income, expenses, assets, and liabilities of that cost center. So, I agree with you that this doesn't have to say of that cost center and could easily say the IASA. But, when you say in the form of a PL statement, I get a little scared ... as you know from your periodic reviews of the ISOC overall finances, an income statement without a balance sheet doesn't make a lot of sense. While keeping implementation details out of the BCP is a good thing, I do think it is appropriate to get the general principle across: full visibility and transparency of the IASA activity through the use of regular reporting using standard financial statements that show the IETF community the income, expenses, assets, and liabilities of this particular activity. The general principle is that, because this is a community activity, we're all agreeing that more visibility than usual is appropriate here. That seems like a reasonable request/requirement, particularly given the past history of minimal reporting by the secretariat. Not your fault, I know, but this is a sensitive issue given the history and thus requires a little extra attention. Regards, Carl I generally agree with Tom and Carl. The community needs visibility in to the IASA finances, sufficient to ensure that the IETF's money is spent on IETF-related activities with a reasonable level of prudence. I don't think that our BCP needs to specify a reporting methodology that the IAD/IAOC should use to provide that visibility... Today, we are looking at organizing the IASA as a cost center within ISOC, and it seems likely that the visibility that the IETF needs can be provided in the form of a PL statement for the costs center and a summary of its general ledger accounts. That's fine, but do we need to say it here? There is a section of the BCP that says: Within the constraints outlined above, all other details of how to structure this activity within ISOC (whether as a cost center, a department, or a formal subsidiary) shall be determined by ISOC in consultation with the IAOC. It seems inconsistent with this section to mandate elsewhere that the IASA will be organized as a cost center, that we will use cost center accounting, that the financial reports will include a PL for the cost center, that we will publish the general ledger accounts, etc. These are details that, IMO, the IAOC and ISOC should work out (and change as needed to meet the needs of IASA and the IETF community) between themselves. Margaret At 11:43 AM -0800 1/20/05, Carl Malamud wrote: Hi - I agree with Tom that this is kind of confused, and I think there is some potential fast and loose use of the language of accountancy. :)) I think the vague term accounts is just fine for the purpose we are engaged in. I think all we're trying to say is that the ietf community would like to see a periodic summary of the IASA accounts in the form of standard financial statements that reflect the income, expenses, assets, and liabilities of that cost center. I don't think we need to get into general ledgers and all that other technical accounting talk. Regards, Carl Inline, Tom Petch - Original Message - From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ietf@ietf.org Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 3:24 PM Subject: Resolution? #787 terminology - in particular ISOC Standards Pillar In #787, Margaret raised a couple of terminology questions related to the terms: - IASA Accounts - IETF accounts - ISOC Standards pillar In discussion, it seems clear that IETF accounts is a mistake, and should be changed to IASA accounts
Re: Resolution? #787 terminology - in particular ISOC StandardsPillar
Hi Tom - Ah ships in the night; yes, Carl, I think this is the best wording so far. Two queries in my mind. Looking at the ISOC Report 2003, I notice it uses revenue rather than income that you use; is there any hidden meaning in that? eg because it is incorporated as a nonprofit organization? Revenue and income are equivalent. In the non-profit world, we prefer revenue to income and excess of revenues over expense to the word profit. And reading between the lines, perhaps I should be less trusting of ISOC so is it sufficient to say periodic summary? Is there any implication elsewhere of how often periodic is? I expect accounts at least every 12 months for any organisation, with them being more frequent for larger organisations, even every three months for some. I really wouldn't bother specifying that. My personal view? Quarterly is always nice. But, I think that's something for the iaoc/isoc/etc... to work out ... they can figure out if their specific actions meet the general principle easily enough. And, I wasn't being at all distrustful here of ISOC ... I was just trying to express the general principle in traditional language. (Same with your cash flow analysis ... while I always prepare those for my organizations, it would be unusual require such a level of analysis for external consumption, and it probably wouldn't give you a tremendous amount of insight into the functioning of a cost center as that part of the operation is backed by the overall organization. That's why I just listed the usual 4 of revenue/income, expenses, assets, and liabilities.) Regards, Carl ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Resolution? #787 terminology - in particular ISOC StandardsPillar
Thanks for the clarification; I think your wording, the one without the mention of the cost center,. is just fine. Tom Petch - Original Message - From: Carl Malamud [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Tom Petch [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Margaret Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 9:23 PM Subject: Re: Resolution? #787 terminology - in particular ISOC StandardsPillar Hi Tom - Ah ships in the night; yes, Carl, I think this is the best wording so far. Two queries in my mind. Looking at the ISOC Report 2003, I notice it uses revenue rather than income that you use; is there any hidden meaning in that? eg because it is incorporated as a nonprofit organization? Revenue and income are equivalent. In the non-profit world, we prefer revenue to income and excess of revenues over expense to the word profit. And reading between the lines, perhaps I should be less trusting of ISOC so is it sufficient to say periodic summary? Is there any implication elsewhere of how often periodic is? I expect accounts at least every 12 months for any organisation, with them being more frequent for larger organisations, even every three months for some. I really wouldn't bother specifying that. My personal view? Quarterly is always nice. But, I think that's something for the iaoc/isoc/etc... to work out ... they can figure out if their specific actions meet the general principle easily enough. And, I wasn't being at all distrustful here of ISOC ... I was just trying to express the general principle in traditional language. (Same with your cash flow analysis ... while I always prepare those for my organizations, it would be unusual require such a level of analysis for external consumption, and it probably wouldn't give you a tremendous amount of insight into the functioning of a cost center as that part of the operation is backed by the overall organization. That's why I just listed the usual 4 of revenue/income, expenses, assets, and liabilities.) Regards, Carl ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legal review results 1: Intellectual property
On Friday, January 21, 2005 15:40:31 +0100 Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ISOC will permit IASA and its designee(s) to have sole control and custodianship of such Developed Software, and ISOC will not utilize or access such Developed Software in connection with any ISOC function other than IETF without the written consent of the IAD. This looks problematic to me. It suggests that if the IASA funds development work on an open-source ticketing system, that ISOC would not be allowed to use that system without the consent of the IAD. This is wrong - if the IASA is going to fund any open-source development, it should not expect to have control over who uses the result. Also, I'm a bit concerned about language that tries to limit what ISOC can do without the written consent of the IAD. Given that the IAD will be an employee of ISOC, it's not clear that this actually provides any protection. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legal review 2: Trademarks
On Friday, January 21, 2005 17:10:01 +0100 Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: More from Jorge: 2. Trademarks. There has been a lot of discussion about ownership and maintenance of IETF-related trademarks. I would suggest that one of the IAD/IASA duties be to consider appropriate trademark protection for the IETF's identifying names (such as IETF, IRTF, etc.), and then oversee the prosecution and maintenance of such trademarks. This activity should be identified as part of the IASA budget. Good catch, but does it belong in the BCP? Seems like good advice to the IAOC. It would seem appropriate for the BCP to contain language authorizing the IASA to register, maintain, and defend trademarks on behalf of the IETF. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
IASA Transition Team update on Secretariat 2005
As part of its work to look at potential agreements with service providers, the IASA Transition Team has been reviewing the possibilities for IETF secretariat functions for 2005. As you have heard, CNRI has committed to running the IETF Secretariat for 2005, as it has done in the past, unless and until a suitable alternate arrangement is established. The IASA Transition Team has been informed by CNRI and NeuStar that discussions are underway to sell Foretec to NeuStar, after which NeuStar would create a new, non-profit company with the intent of offering continuing Secretariat services to the IETF with changed management and under new rules of financial transparency and management control. To date, we are unaware of any binding agreements having been made between CNRI and NeuStar. The IASA TT observes that this arrangement would have the advantage of preserving the continuity of the Secretariat operation and ensuring that both the 2005 meeting schedule and the ongoing support of the IESG and working groups proceed without interruption. At the same time, a very large portion of the goals of the Administrative Restructuring effort would be accomplished. Specifically, within the next few months: o The IASA operation will be in place as an IETF-controlled activity within the Internet Society o There will be full financial transparency and accountability o There will be full management accountability o All future intellectual property will be unequivocally accessible to the IETF and the community. Therefore, the Transition Team is favorably inclined to consider a proposal from NeuStar for continuing Secretariat services under very specific conditions. 1. This arrangement would be for a limited period of time, after which the IASA will review the performance and proceed to an open RFP (in which this new company could reasonably compete) 2. The operating relationship between the IASA and the NeuStar entity would be based on the IASA-Secretariat relationship framework described below. Leslie, for The IASA Transition Team -- Proposed IASA-Secretariat relationship framework Upon establishment of the IASA, it (or the appropriate component of the IASA, as defined by the BCP) will interact with the organization(s) providing secretariat services as follows: 1. The IASA, on behalf of the IETF expects to operate under a written agreement with the provider(s) of IETF secretariat functions. 2. The IASA will be accountable for all money received and expended on behalf of the IETF (as described in the IASA BCP). This necessarily means that the IASA is responsible for decisions related to expenditures. Implementation details for decision making, requests, and authorization will be defined in the written agreement(s) between IASA and the provider(s). 2.1 The IASA will approve new meeting location proposals. 2.2 The IASA will manage proposals for administrative infrastructure improvements (software, tools requirements and expenditures). 2.3 The IASA will be responsible for maintaining the IETF administrative work descriptions and assignments, beyond the existing definition of secretariat activities. 3. The IASA will evaluate the performance of the services and will make decisions for service continuation or termination. 4. In principle, all data and any other IPR created or collected on behalf of the IETF for secretariat purposes will be made accessible to the IASA on a regular basis, and the IASA may make that data available to other parties to perform activities not included in the secretariat functions. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Legal review 3: Legal advice
On Friday, January 21, 2005 15:42:32 +0100 Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From Jorge: 3. Legal Advice. (Apologies if I sound biased about this one, but) Although the IAD and IASA have responsibility for negotiating and approving all contracts relating to IETF, there is no indication that they are expected or even encouraged to seek legal advice regarding these contracts. Given the unclear language of some of the historical IETF-related contracts, I think it would be advisable to set forth a principle that the IAD should seek legal advice regarding any material contract that he/she negotiates. This would exclude routine contracts for things like office services, but should definitely apply to the contracts with ISOC, IANA, ICANN, the RFC Editor, the conference organizer (whether it's CNRI, Fortec, or somebody else), and any contract that relates to the development of data, software or other IP. Yes. Moreover, I think that an express statement should be made that the IAD/IASA should obtain independent legal advice. That is, from legal counsel who are not ISOC's counsel. This will serve to reinforce the independence of IETF from ISOC. I don't see the need for this. Note that as part of ISOC, the IASA will not be entering into contracts with ISOC (IANAL, but my understanding is that there is no legal basis for an entity to contract with itself). Given this, I not only don't see a reason to prohibit IASA from using legal resources maintained by ISOC, I actually believe that should be encouraged. -- Jeffrey T. Hutzelman (N3NHS) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sr. Research Systems Programmer School of Computer Science - Research Computing Facility Carnegie Mellon University - Pittsburgh, PA ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5
Following up the point I made in response to Mike St.Johns a couple days ago, I went back through the document to see if/how it distinguishes between being adequately responsive and accountable to the community, from having appropriate chains of accountability for contractual purposes (and no micromanagement of the business affairs of the IASA). It seems to me that we should: 1/ Change this section: 3.3 Relationship of the IAOC to Existing IETF Leadership to 3.6 Responsiveness of IASA to the IETF and include the original text plus Harald's text adjusted to be about the general processes. And a point about objective process metrics. 2/ Add a section (3.5) specifically about business decisions -- which, as Mike St.Johns pointed out, should remain within the IAD/IAOC. That would make: 3.5 Business Decisions Decisions made by the IAD in the course of carrying out IASA business activities are subject to review by the IAOC. The decisions of the IAOC must be publicly documented to include voting records for each formal action. 3.6 Responsiveness of IASA to the IETF The IAOC is directly accountable to the IETF community for the performance of the IASA. However, the nature of the IAOC's work involves treating the IESG and IAB as major internal customers of the administrative support services. The IAOC and the IAD should not consider their work successful unless the IESG and IAB are also satisfied with the administrative support that the IETF is receiving. In order to achieve this, the IASA should ensure there are reported objective performance metrics for all IETF process supporting activities. In the case where someone questions an action of the IAD or the IAOC in meeting the IETF requirements as outlined above, he or she may ask for a formal review of the decision. The request for review is addressed to the person or body that made the decision. It is up to that body to decide to make a response, and on the form of a response. The IAD is required to respond to requests for a review from the IAOC, and the IAOC is required to respond to requests for a review of a decision from the IAB or from the IESG. If members of the community feel that they are unjustly denied a response to a request for review, they may ask the IAB or the IESG to make the request on their behalf. Answered requests for review and their responses are made public. Leslie. Leslie Daigle wrote: Interesting... To the extent that the IAD and IAOC are dealing with decisions about implementing requirements, I agree. To the extent that the IAD and IAOC are applying judgement to interpret the best needs of the IETF (i.e., determining those requirements), I disagree. I think it's a little heavy-handed to have to instigate a recall procedure if the IAD (or IAOC) seem not to have heard the *community's* requirements for meeting location. So, (how) can we make the distinction without creating a decision tree of epic proportions? Leslie. Michael StJohns wrote: Hi Harald et al - I apologize for chiming in on this so late, but I had hopes it would get worked out without me pushing over apple carts. I can't support this and I recommend deleting this section in its entirety. My cut on this: The decisions of the IAD should be subject to review (and in some cases ratification) ONLY by the IAOC. The decisions of the IAOC should not be subject to further review by the IETF at large. The proper venue for expressing tangible displeasure with a decision is during the appointment and reappointment process. (Note, I'm not precluding pre-decision comment by the community at large, and I encourage the IAOC to seek such comment where appropriate but once the decision is made its time to stop whining and get on with things) The decisions of the IAOC must be publicly documented to include voting records for each formal action. The IAOC and IAD must accept public or private comment but there is no requirement to either respond or comment on such missives. The IAOC and IAD should not be subject to the IETF appeals process. The appropriate venue for egregious enough complaints on the commercial side is the legal system or the recall process. My reasoning: The IAD and IAOC are making commercial (as opposed to standards) decisions and the result of that may be contracts or other commercial relationships. Its inappropriate in the extreme to insert a third (or fourth or fifth) party into that relationship. The IAD/IAOC relationship is going to be somewhat one of employee/employer and its inappropriate to insert external parties into that relationship. The documentation requirement is so that when the appointment process happens there will be some audit trail as to who did what to whom. The IETF appeals process is not appropriate for a commercial action. A standards action may adversely affect competitors across a broad spectrum of companies. This commercial action only affects the bidders or winners. Please, let's get the IETF
Internet-Draft Submission Cutoff Dates for the 62nd IETF Meeting in Minneapolis, MN
There are two (2) Internet-Draft cutoff dates for the 62nd IETF Meeting in Minneapolis, MN: February 14th: Cutoff Date for Initial (i.e., -00) Internet-Draft Submissions All initial Internet-Drafts (-00) must be submitted by Monday, February 14th at 9:00 AM ET. As always, all initial submissions (-00) with a filename beginning with draft-ietf must be approved by the appropriate WG Chair before they can be processed or announced. WG Chair approval must be received by Monday, February 7th at 9:00 AM ET. February 21st: Cutoff Date for Revised (i.e., -01 and higher) Internet-Draft Submissions All revised Internet-Drafts (-01 and higher) must be submitted by Monday, February 21st at 9:00 AM ET. Initial and revised Internet-Drafts received after their respective cutoff dates will not be made available in the Internet-Drafts directory or announced, and will have to be resubmitted. Please do not wait until the last minute to submit. The Secretariat will begin accepting Internet-Draft submissions starting Monday, March 7th at 9:00 AM ET, but may not post or announce them until Monday, March 14th. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. If you have any questions or concerns, then please send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] The IETF Secretariat FYI: The Internet-Draft cutoff dates as well as other significant dates for the 62nd IETF Meeting can be found at http://www.ietf.org/meetings/IETF-62.html. ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
Last Call: 'IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) metrics registry' to BCP
The IESG has received a request from the IP Performance Metrics WG to consider the following document: - 'IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) metrics registry ' draft-ietf-ippm-metrics-registry-08.txt as a BCP The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send any comments to the iesg@ietf.org or ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2005-02-04. The file can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-metrics-registry-08.txt ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
Protocol Action: 'IAB Processes for management of liaison relationships' to BCP
The IESG has approved the following documents: - 'IAB Processes for management of liaison relationships ' draft-iab-liaison-mgt-03.txt as a BCP - 'Procedures for handling liaison statements to and from the IETF ' draft-baker-liaison-statements-04.txt as a BCP These documents are products of the Internet Architecture Board. The IESG contact person is Harald Alvestrand. Technical Summary The first document in the set discusses the procedures the IAB uses to select organizations to form and maintain liaison relationships with. It further discusses the expectations that the IAB has of such organizations and of the people assigned to manage those relationships. The second document describes a proposed procedure for proper handling of incoming liaison statements from other standards development organizations (SDOs), consortia, and industry fora, and for generating liaison statements to be transmitted from IETF/ISOC to other SDOs, consortia and industry fora. The intent is that the IETF will switch to this process as soon as support is available for it. Working Group Summary These documents were developed under the supervision of the IAB. There were no negative Last Call comments. Protocol Quality The spec has been reviewed for the IESG by Harald Alvestrand ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
