Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
Fred Baker wrote: A thought... your list below eliminates five out of the ten of the IAOC. The remaining folks include the IAOC secretary (whom I would suggest should also be ineligible), a member selected by the IETF nomcom, the member selected by the IESG, and the member selected by the IAB. I would suggest that a simpler wording would be to make the folks *eligible* be those that are not ex officio, not the secretary, and not selected by the ISOC Board. I would guess that the issue with the member selected by the ISOC Board is that the IETF would like to be sure it is an IETF participant. a. The following Trustees are not eligible to serve as IETF Chair: 1. ISOC President 2. IAB Chair 3. IETF Chair 4. ISOC IAOC Appointee 5. IAD Does this work for you? a. Trustees eligible to serve as Trust Chair are NomCom, IESG and IAB appointees to the IAOC Ray. http://iaoc.ietf.org/members_detail.html: Bob Hinden, appointed by the IAB - bob.hinden at nokia.com Ole Jacobsen, appointed by the IESG - ole at cisco.com * Fred Baker, appointed by the ISOC Board of Trustees - fred at cisco.com * Russ Housley, the IETF Chair (ex officio) - housley at vigilsec.com * Olaf Kolkman, the IAB Chair (ex officio) - olaf at NLnetlabs.nl * Lynn St.Amour, the ISOC President/CEO (ex officio) - st.amour at isoc.org Jonne Soininen, IAOC Chair, appointed by the NomCom (2 year term, appointed 2007) - jonne.soininen at nsn.com Ed Juskevicius, appointed by the NomCom (2 year term, appointed 2006) - edj at nortel.com * Ray Pelletier, IETF Administrative Director (non-voting) - iad at ietf.org * Marshall Eubanks (tme at multicasttech.com) serves as the IAOC Scribe ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
No Ray - the Trust member's need to NOT have any other active IESG/IETF or IAB relationship's while they sit on the Trust since there would be clear-cut violation's of conflict and that is that. Todd Glassey - Original Message - From: Ray Pelletier [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Fred Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Leslie Daigle [EMAIL PROTECTED]; IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org; Harald Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 6:09 AM Subject: Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures Fred Baker wrote: A thought... your list below eliminates five out of the ten of the IAOC. The remaining folks include the IAOC secretary (whom I would suggest should also be ineligible), a member selected by the IETF nomcom, the member selected by the IESG, and the member selected by the IAB. I would suggest that a simpler wording would be to make the folks *eligible* be those that are not ex officio, not the secretary, and not selected by the ISOC Board. I would guess that the issue with the member selected by the ISOC Board is that the IETF would like to be sure it is an IETF participant. a. The following Trustees are not eligible to serve as IETF Chair: 1. ISOC President 2. IAB Chair 3. IETF Chair 4. ISOC IAOC Appointee 5. IAD Does this work for you? a. Trustees eligible to serve as Trust Chair are NomCom, IESG and IAB appointees to the IAOC Ray. http://iaoc.ietf.org/members_detail.html: Bob Hinden, appointed by the IAB - bob.hinden at nokia.com Ole Jacobsen, appointed by the IESG - ole at cisco.com * Fred Baker, appointed by the ISOC Board of Trustees - fred at cisco.com * Russ Housley, the IETF Chair (ex officio) - housley at vigilsec.com * Olaf Kolkman, the IAB Chair (ex officio) - olaf at NLnetlabs.nl * Lynn St.Amour, the ISOC President/CEO (ex officio) - st.amour at isoc.org Jonne Soininen, IAOC Chair, appointed by the NomCom (2 year term, appointed 2007) - jonne.soininen at nsn.com Ed Juskevicius, appointed by the NomCom (2 year term, appointed 2006) - edj at nortel.com * Ray Pelletier, IETF Administrative Director (non-voting) - iad at ietf.org * Marshall Eubanks (tme at multicasttech.com) serves as the IAOC Scribe ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
Ray, While I could live with this, I agree, strongly, with Ted. The character and volume of comments, including organized outside interventions, in the IPR discussions of the last year or two, should be sufficient to convince everyone how significant IPR matters can get. If the Trust is the holder of the IETF IPR, and there is a Chair of the IETF Trust, then that person will be seen by outsiders and the press as official spokesperson for the IETF on IPR matters. While I think we can trust (sic) that the person so designated will answer carefully or defer to others, I don't think it is wise --for the Trust or for the IETF-- for someone to be carrying that target around. Den mother really appears to me :-) I also agree with Ted about the implied contradictions between this is an important position and well, it isn't. The problem, however, is not just in the name. If, as section 2(d) indicates, this position has no actual authority, then you should clean up any other material that is consistent only with long-term important and responsible position. For example, the Chair should serve at the pleasure of the Trustees, and that doesn't imply a supermajority vote to remove him or her. Pleasure of the Trustees tells me that if a majority of the Trustees have sufficiently lost confidence in a designated leader (whether Chair or Den Mother) to deal with the disruption and effort to select someone else, then that person should be out. I would hope and assume that loss of confidence by a majority of the Trustees would cause an immediate resignation and that no voting would be needed. If a vote to remove is necessary, a 2/3 requirement sends exactly the wrong message. Yes, going down to a majority increases the odds of thrashing in that position slightly. If the position isn't long-term significant, that is not a problem (in the limiting case, it just turns into a rotating chair). Moreover, if there is thrashing to the point that it becomes disruptive (something I consider very unlikely, by the way), then there is a problem that the IETF and/or ISOC should be dealing with by changing the cast of characters. So, again, I ask that, whatever you do, it be made internally consistent in optics as well as in substance when read carefully and believed (as well as preserving consistency with the Trust Agreement, which has now been accomplished). I do note, fwiw, that I've seen zero support on the IETF list (including from IAOC members) for a strong IETF Trust Chair. If you don't intend strong chair, then please clean such things as that title and the supermajority out. thanks, john --On Thursday, 10 April, 2008 22:27 -0700 Ted Hardie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have resisted contributing to this thread because so many of the salient points had already been made. But permit me to make a small observation. This proposal has a general thrust that seems to say This position is important, and we don't want to pile too much power in one pair of hands, so we can't let the following folks take the position, and we need explicit ways of removing someone from the position. It also has a section (d), which downplays that reading by saying: The Chair shall convene and preside over meetings of the Trustees but shall have no other powers or authority beyond his or her powers as a Trustee. If the Trust Chair is not available, then any other Trustee may convene or preside over meetings of the Trustees in the absence of the Trust Chair. When Brian tried to create Vice Chairs for the IESG, the IESG of the time was very concerned with both the optics inside the IETF, the optics outside the IETF, and the chance that Vice Chairs would eventually come to believe that they had a role beyond chivvying folks to do get their positions in on time. After much discussion, including silly suggestions by me, Whips got picked as the title instead. That worked, and the people doing the job helped a lot in taking up tasks that Brian did not have time for. A Whip is not what you're looking for here, but it seems clear to me that the terminology of Chair is going to set up the same kind of expectations that have caused problems before. This person *will*, for example, get called for quotes by press looking at IPR issues in the IETF. They can push those off, but believe me that there is a target painted on the back of the stuckee with this choice of phrase. Call this role a meeting convener or show runner or den mother or something else less likely to cause confusion and attract trouble. That will help, at least in my opinion. Names matter, and the one you've chosen implies powers that all the sub-clauses in the document can't truly take away. Thanks for listening, Ted ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
I too like Ted's comments. If the job is really to preside over the Trust meetings, the title convener might be useful; if the job is to make sure Trust work gets followed up, call it an executive director. But I can live with the current proposal (although dropping #12 entirely would make absolutely no difference, and make the document shorter). Harald ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
Dear Ray; I support these changes. I have one nit. On Apr 10, 2008, at 9:21 PM, Ray Pelletier wrote: The Trustees have considered the comments from the list and propose the following amended revisions to the Trust Administrative Procedures. The Trustees propose to take action at its April 17th meeting and will consider all comments received by that date. 2. The Trustees shall select one Trustee to serve as the Chair of the Trust. a. The following Trustees are not eligible to serve as IETF Chair: 1. ISOC President 2. IAB Chair 3. IETF Chair 4. ISOC IAOC Appointee 5. IAD b. The term of the Trust Chair shall be one year from the time of selection or the remaining time of his or her tenure as a Trustee, whichever is less. An individual may serve any number of terms as Chair, if selected by the Trustees. c. The Chair serves at the pleasure of the Trustees and may be removed from that position at any time by a vote of 2/3 of the voting Trustees, not counting the Trust Chair. d. The Chair shall convene and preside over meetings of the Trustees but shall have no other powers or authority beyond his or her powers as a Trustee. If the Trust Chair is not available, then any other Trustee may convene or preside over meetings of the Trustees in the absence of the Trust Chair. 4. The Trust Agreement defines the quorum and voting rules for a meeting. Motions passed by electronic means between meetings shall be confirmed by a vote at the next possible meeting. 12. The Trustees are the current members of the IAOC. I would prefer simply The Trustees are current members of the IAOC. as IAOC members who have not agreed in writing to become a Trustee are not. Regards Marshall When a member leaves the IAOC for whatever reason, he or she ceases to be a Trustee. When a new member joins the IAOC, he or she becomes a Trustee upon his or her agreement in writing to fulfill the duties of a Trustee, as specified in the Trust Agreement. a. If at any time the IAOC ceases to exist, or there are fewer than three Trustees, then the IESG, or its successor, shall appoint Trustees in accordance with Article VI of the Trust Agreement. Ray Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 2008-04-10 07:04, John C Klensin wrote: --On Wednesday, 09 April, 2008 13:50 -0400 Ed Juskevicius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John, you wrote: Then recommend to the community that the Trust Agreement be changed. The Trustees are not talking about changing the terms of the Trust Agreement, so this should not be necessary. Good. But I was just trying to suggest, following what I thought I saw in Marshall's note, that, if the Trust Agreement is defective, one could try to change it. The other option is to conform to it. Ignoring it and adopting procedures or polices inconsistent with it --even if one believes those policies will never be triggered-- is a non-starter. I am worried about the IAOC and/or Trustees adopting procedures that are inconsistent with the Trust Agreement. Me too! It is not the intention of the Trustees to adopt procedures that are inconsistent with the Trust Agreement. if anything is going to be said, it needs to be consistent with the Trust Agreement _and_ reflect the desires and intent of the community. I agree. I think we are in synch. I agree with the above, and I assure everybody that the intent was always exactly that. There's definitely an error in the way the current procedures were drafted; it was my error, and I have evry confidence that the current Trustees will fix it. Brian ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
Something rather obvious. Stephan On 4/11/08 7:32 AM, Marshall Eubanks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2. The Trustees shall select one Trustee to serve as the Chair of the Trust. a. The following Trustees are not eligible to serve as IETF Chair: Trust 1. ISOC President 2. IAB Chair 3. IETF Chair 4. ISOC IAOC Appointee 5. IAD ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
A thought... your list below eliminates five out of the ten of the IAOC. The remaining folks include the IAOC secretary (whom I would suggest should also be ineligible), a member selected by the IETF nomcom, the member selected by the IESG, and the member selected by the IAB. I would suggest that a simpler wording would be to make the folks *eligible* be those that are not ex officio, not the secretary, and not selected by the ISOC Board. I would guess that the issue with the member selected by the ISOC Board is that the IETF would like to be sure it is an IETF participant. a. The following Trustees are not eligible to serve as IETF Chair: Trust 1. ISOC President 2. IAB Chair 3. IETF Chair 4. ISOC IAOC Appointee 5. IAD http://iaoc.ietf.org/members_detail.html: Bob Hinden, appointed by the IAB - bob.hinden at nokia.com Ole Jacobsen, appointed by the IESG - ole at cisco.com * Fred Baker, appointed by the ISOC Board of Trustees - fred at cisco.com * Russ Housley, the IETF Chair (ex officio) - housley at vigilsec.com * Olaf Kolkman, the IAB Chair (ex officio) - olaf at NLnetlabs.nl * Lynn St.Amour, the ISOC President/CEO (ex officio) - st.amour at isoc.org Jonne Soininen, IAOC Chair, appointed by the NomCom (2 year term, appointed 2007) - jonne.soininen at nsn.com Ed Juskevicius, appointed by the NomCom (2 year term, appointed 2006) - edj at nortel.com * Ray Pelletier, IETF Administrative Director (non-voting) - iad at ietf.org * Marshall Eubanks (tme at multicasttech.com) serves as the IAOC Scribe ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
On 2008-04-11 23:40, Harald Alvestrand wrote: I too like Ted's comments. If the job is really to preside over the Trust meetings, the title convener might be useful; if the job is to make sure Trust work gets followed up, call it an executive director. But I can live with the current proposal (although dropping #12 entirely would make absolutely no difference, and make the document shorter). I hope we all agree that the job of chairing the meetings of the Trust (and some consequent involvement in preparing the agenda and ensuring that decisions are followed up) is not a role that should lead to public speaking engagements or extensive press interviews. But I really don't see another name for the job that makes sense. I think convening the meetings and executing decisions of the Trust is clearly IAD work. Brian ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
The Trustees have considered the comments from the list and propose the following amended revisions to the Trust Administrative Procedures. The Trustees propose to take action at its April 17th meeting and will consider all comments received by that date. 2. The Trustees shall select one Trustee to serve as the Chair of the Trust. a. The following Trustees are not eligible to serve as IETF Chair: 1. ISOC President 2. IAB Chair 3. IETF Chair 4. ISOC IAOC Appointee 5. IAD b. The term of the Trust Chair shall be one year from the time of selection or the remaining time of his or her tenure as a Trustee, whichever is less. An individual may serve any number of terms as Chair, if selected by the Trustees. c. The Chair serves at the pleasure of the Trustees and may be removed from that position at any time by a vote of 2/3 of the voting Trustees, not counting the Trust Chair. d. The Chair shall convene and preside over meetings of the Trustees but shall have no other powers or authority beyond his or her powers as a Trustee. If the Trust Chair is not available, then any other Trustee may convene or preside over meetings of the Trustees in the absence of the Trust Chair. 4. The Trust Agreement defines the quorum and voting rules for a meeting. Motions passed by electronic means between meetings shall be confirmed by a vote at the next possible meeting. 12. The Trustees are the current members of the IAOC. When a member leaves the IAOC for whatever reason, he or she ceases to be a Trustee. When a new member joins the IAOC, he or she becomes a Trustee upon his or her agreement in writing to fulfill the duties of a Trustee, as specified in the Trust Agreement. a. If at any time the IAOC ceases to exist, or there are fewer than three Trustees, then the IESG, or its successor, shall appoint Trustees in accordance with Article VI of the Trust Agreement. Ray Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 2008-04-10 07:04, John C Klensin wrote: --On Wednesday, 09 April, 2008 13:50 -0400 Ed Juskevicius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John, you wrote: Then recommend to the community that the Trust Agreement be changed. The Trustees are not talking about changing the terms of the Trust Agreement, so this should not be necessary. Good. But I was just trying to suggest, following what I thought I saw in Marshall's note, that, if the Trust Agreement is defective, one could try to change it. The other option is to conform to it. Ignoring it and adopting procedures or polices inconsistent with it --even if one believes those policies will never be triggered-- is a non-starter. I am worried about the IAOC and/or Trustees adopting procedures that are inconsistent with the Trust Agreement. Me too! It is not the intention of the Trustees to adopt procedures that are inconsistent with the Trust Agreement. if anything is going to be said, it needs to be consistent with the Trust Agreement _and_ reflect the desires and intent of the community. I agree. I think we are in synch. I agree with the above, and I assure everybody that the intent was always exactly that. There's definitely an error in the way the current procedures were drafted; it was my error, and I have evry confidence that the current Trustees will fix it. Brian ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
I have resisted contributing to this thread because so many of the salient points had already been made. But permit me to make a small observation. This proposal has a general thrust that seems to say This position is important, and we don't want to pile too much power in one pair of hands, so we can't let the following folks take the position, and we need explicit ways of removing someone from the position. It also has a section (d), which downplays that reading by saying: The Chair shall convene and preside over meetings of the Trustees but shall have no other powers or authority beyond his or her powers as a Trustee. If the Trust Chair is not available, then any other Trustee may convene or preside over meetings of the Trustees in the absence of the Trust Chair. When Brian tried to create Vice Chairs for the IESG, the IESG of the time was very concerned with both the optics inside the IETF, the optics outside the IETF, and the chance that Vice Chairs would eventually come to believe that they had a role beyond chivvying folks to do get their positions in on time. After much discussion, including silly suggestions by me, Whips got picked as the title instead. That worked, and the people doing the job helped a lot in taking up tasks that Brian did not have time for. A Whip is not what you're looking for here, but it seems clear to me that the terminology of Chair is going to set up the same kind of expectations that have caused problems before. This person *will*, for example, get called for quotes by press looking at IPR issues in the IETF. They can push those off, but believe me that there is a target painted on the back of the stuckee with this choice of phrase. Call this role a meeting convener or show runner or den mother or something else less likely to cause confusion and attract trouble. That will help, at least in my opinion. Names matter, and the one you've chosen implies powers that all the sub-clauses in the document can't truly take away. Thanks for listening, Ted At 6:21 PM -0700 4/10/08, Ray Pelletier wrote: The Trustees have considered the comments from the list and propose the following amended revisions to the Trust Administrative Procedures. The Trustees propose to take action at its April 17th meeting and will consider all comments received by that date. 2. The Trustees shall select one Trustee to serve as the Chair of the Trust. a. The following Trustees are not eligible to serve as IETF Chair: 1. ISOC President 2. IAB Chair 3. IETF Chair 4. ISOC IAOC Appointee 5. IAD b. The term of the Trust Chair shall be one year from the time of selection or the remaining time of his or her tenure as a Trustee, whichever is less. An individual may serve any number of terms as Chair, if selected by the Trustees. c. The Chair serves at the pleasure of the Trustees and may be removed from that position at any time by a vote of 2/3 of the voting Trustees, not counting the Trust Chair. d. The Chair shall convene and preside over meetings of the Trustees but shall have no other powers or authority beyond his or her powers as a Trustee. If the Trust Chair is not available, then any other Trustee may convene or preside over meetings of the Trustees in the absence of the Trust Chair. 4. The Trust Agreement defines the quorum and voting rules for a meeting. Motions passed by electronic means between meetings shall be confirmed by a vote at the next possible meeting. 12. The Trustees are the current members of the IAOC. When a member leaves the IAOC for whatever reason, he or she ceases to be a Trustee. When a new member joins the IAOC, he or she becomes a Trustee upon his or her agreement in writing to fulfill the duties of a Trustee, as specified in the Trust Agreement. a. If at any time the IAOC ceases to exist, or there are fewer than three Trustees, then the IESG, or its successor, shall appoint Trustees in accordance with Article VI of the Trust Agreement. Ray Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 2008-04-10 07:04, John C Klensin wrote: --On Wednesday, 09 April, 2008 13:50 -0400 Ed Juskevicius mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John, you wrote: Then recommend to the community that the Trust Agreement be changed. The Trustees are not talking about changing the terms of the Trust Agreement, so this should not be necessary. Good. But I was just trying to suggest, following what I thought I saw in Marshall's note, that, if the Trust Agreement is defective, one could try to change it. The other option is to conform to it. Ignoring it and adopting procedures or polices inconsistent with it --even if one believes those policies will never be triggered-- is a non-starter. I am worried about the IAOC and/or Trustees adopting procedures that are inconsistent with the Trust Agreement. Me too! It is not the intention of the Trustees to adopt
Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
--On Wednesday, 09 April, 2008 14:00 +1200 Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let's expand the quotation from the current, unamended Trust procedures slightly: If at any time the IAOC ceases to exist, the Trustees then in office shall remain in office and determine the future of the Trust in accordance with the Trust Agreement. I agree there's a drafting error - it should say If at any time the IAOC ceases to exist, the Trustees then in office shall remain in office SOLELY IN ORDER TO determine the future of the Trust in accordance with the Trust Agreement. That was certainly the intent. But that is still inconsistent with the way I (and others) have read the Trust Agreement itself. If that reading is correct then, if the IAOC ceases to exist, the then-current batch of Trustees, or at least those who are Trustees as the result of IETF appointments or positions, all go poof in that role. The IESG then appoints three Trustees and _they_, not the prior incumbents, get to determine the future of the Trust. This distinction is important because it means that the people doing the determining of the future are potentially different people and definitely in different roles. Precisely the one thing those lame-duck Trustees should not be doing is determining the future of the Trust. The language that would be consistent with that reading of the Trust Agreement would be something more like... If at any time the IAOC ceases to exist, the Trustees then in office shall remain in office only until the IESG can appoint new Trustees in accordance with the Trust Agreement. During that period, their sole role and authority will be to conduct day to day business; they are prohibited from making any decisions with long-term or broad implications that cannot be reversed by their IESG-appointed successors. If one is going to plan for an unlikely, and potentially catastrophic, contingency at all, it is worth getting it right. Even independent of what the Trust Agreement says, if the IETF decides to get rid of the IAOC, the decisions about what happens next to IETF Administration should be firmly and exclusively in IETF hands. Then one needs to worry about what happens if the IETF goes away :-( john ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
On Apr 9, 2008, at 8:21 AM, John C Klensin wrote: --On Wednesday, 09 April, 2008 14:00 +1200 Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let's expand the quotation from the current, unamended Trust procedures slightly: If at any time the IAOC ceases to exist, the Trustees then in office shall remain in office and determine the future of the Trust in accordance with the Trust Agreement. I agree there's a drafting error - it should say If at any time the IAOC ceases to exist, the Trustees then in office shall remain in office SOLELY IN ORDER TO determine the future of the Trust in accordance with the Trust Agreement. How, precisely, would the IAOC cease to exist ? If they all resign or die, the IETF (IESG, IAB, ISOC) would appoint more. If BCP 101 was changed, the new document would undoubtedly cover the treatment of the Trust by the IAOC replacement, or allow for direct appointments, or whatever. At any rate, that should be worried about then, not now. This wording is, in my opinion, purely to account for the case of the IETF ceasing to exist, in which case I think Brian's wording is appropriate. (And, of course, if there is no IETF, there would presumably also be no IESG, so they could not appoint more.) One of the parties of the Trust agreement was worried about this. I am not. Regards Marshall That was certainly the intent. But that is still inconsistent with the way I (and others) have read the Trust Agreement itself. If that reading is correct then, if the IAOC ceases to exist, the then-current batch of Trustees, or at least those who are Trustees as the result of IETF appointments or positions, all go poof in that role. The IESG then appoints three Trustees and _they_, not the prior incumbents, get to determine the future of the Trust. This distinction is important because it means that the people doing the determining of the future are potentially different people and definitely in different roles. Precisely the one thing those lame-duck Trustees should not be doing is determining the future of the Trust. The language that would be consistent with that reading of the Trust Agreement would be something more like... If at any time the IAOC ceases to exist, the Trustees then in office shall remain in office only until the IESG can appoint new Trustees in accordance with the Trust Agreement. During that period, their sole role and authority will be to conduct day to day business; they are prohibited from making any decisions with long-term or broad implications that cannot be reversed by their IESG-appointed successors. If one is going to plan for an unlikely, and potentially catastrophic, contingency at all, it is worth getting it right. Even independent of what the Trust Agreement says, if the IETF decides to get rid of the IAOC, the decisions about what happens next to IETF Administration should be firmly and exclusively in IETF hands. Then one needs to worry about what happens if the IETF goes away :-( john ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
--On Wednesday, 09 April, 2008 10:24 -0400 Marshall Eubanks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How, precisely, would the IAOC cease to exist ? Marshall, this is nearly irrelevant. The point is that there is language covering that case in the Trust Agreement and there is language in the procedures developed by the Trustees, and they are not consistent. If they all resign or die, the IETF (IESG, IAB, ISOC) would appoint more. If BCP 101 was changed, the new document would undoubtedly cover the treatment of the Trust by the IAOC replacement, or allow for direct appointments, or whatever. At any rate, that should be worried about then, not now. Then recommend to the community that the Trust Agreement be changed. If the ability to make this sort of change somehow got negotiated away... well, I guess we live with that, but it is still no reason to have a procedural document inconsistent with the Trust agreement. This wording is, in my opinion, purely to account for the case of the IETF ceasing to exist, in which case I think Brian's wording is appropriate. My imagination is paranoid enough to think of at least one more case, but I would suggest that the principle remains and that, were the IETF to abruptly go out of business, the former members of the former IAOC might not be the best people to act as receivers of the Trust and controllers of its remaining assets. Note that, with the way the new IPR documents are drawn, the Trust has some long-term responsibilities to the Internet community whether the IETF exists or not. (And, of course, if there is no IETF, there would presumably also be no IESG, so they could not appoint more.) The Trust Agreement, IIR, says IESG or its successor. Whether the various arrangements now in place are adequate to designate a successor to the IESG if they and IETF go out of business, I don't know. But I do know that isn't the problem of the Trust or IAOC (although either could make a proposal about what to do about it). One of the parties of the Trust agreement was worried about this. I am not. I'm not particularly worried about the conditions that would trigger any of these provisions occurring. I am worried about the IAOC and/or Trustees adopting procedures that are inconsistent with the Trust Agreement. Given what the Trust Agreement says, I don't believe the procedures actually need to say a word on this topic. Not saying a word would be, I believe, consistent with your worried about then, not now suggestion. But, if anything is going to be said, it needs to be consistent with the Trust Agreement _and_ reflect the desires and intent of the community. john ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
John, you wrote: Then recommend to the community that the Trust Agreement be changed. The Trustees are not talking about changing the terms of the Trust Agreement, so this should not be necessary. I am worried about the IAOC and/or Trustees adopting procedures that are inconsistent with the Trust Agreement. Me too! It is not the intention of the Trustees to adopt procedures that are inconsistent with the Trust Agreement. if anything is going to be said, it needs to be consistent with the Trust Agreement _and_ reflect the desires and intent of the community. I agree. Regards, Ed Juskevicius -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John C Klensin Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 1:39 PM To: Marshall Eubanks Cc: Leslie Daigle; Harald Alvestrand; IETF Discussion Subject: Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures --On Wednesday, 09 April, 2008 10:24 -0400 Marshall Eubanks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How, precisely, would the IAOC cease to exist ? Marshall, this is nearly irrelevant. The point is that there is language covering that case in the Trust Agreement and there is language in the procedures developed by the Trustees, and they are not consistent. If they all resign or die, the IETF (IESG, IAB, ISOC) would appoint more. If BCP 101 was changed, the new document would undoubtedly cover the treatment of the Trust by the IAOC replacement, or allow for direct appointments, or whatever. At any rate, that should be worried about then, not now. Then recommend to the community that the Trust Agreement be changed. If the ability to make this sort of change somehow got negotiated away... well, I guess we live with that, but it is still no reason to have a procedural document inconsistent with the Trust agreement. This wording is, in my opinion, purely to account for the case of the IETF ceasing to exist, in which case I think Brian's wording is appropriate. My imagination is paranoid enough to think of at least one more case, but I would suggest that the principle remains and that, were the IETF to abruptly go out of business, the former members of the former IAOC might not be the best people to act as receivers of the Trust and controllers of its remaining assets. Note that, with the way the new IPR documents are drawn, the Trust has some long-term responsibilities to the Internet community whether the IETF exists or not. (And, of course, if there is no IETF, there would presumably also be no IESG, so they could not appoint more.) The Trust Agreement, IIR, says IESG or its successor. Whether the various arrangements now in place are adequate to designate a successor to the IESG if they and IETF go out of business, I don't know. But I do know that isn't the problem of the Trust or IAOC (although either could make a proposal about what to do about it). One of the parties of the Trust agreement was worried about this. I am not. I'm not particularly worried about the conditions that would trigger any of these provisions occurring. I am worried about the IAOC and/or Trustees adopting procedures that are inconsistent with the Trust Agreement. Given what the Trust Agreement says, I don't believe the procedures actually need to say a word on this topic. Not saying a word would be, I believe, consistent with your worried about then, not now suggestion. But, if anything is going to be said, it needs to be consistent with the Trust Agreement _and_ reflect the desires and intent of the community. john ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
--On Wednesday, 09 April, 2008 13:50 -0400 Ed Juskevicius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John, you wrote: Then recommend to the community that the Trust Agreement be changed. The Trustees are not talking about changing the terms of the Trust Agreement, so this should not be necessary. Good. But I was just trying to suggest, following what I thought I saw in Marshall's note, that, if the Trust Agreement is defective, one could try to change it. The other option is to conform to it. Ignoring it and adopting procedures or polices inconsistent with it --even if one believes those policies will never be triggered-- is a non-starter. I am worried about the IAOC and/or Trustees adopting procedures that are inconsistent with the Trust Agreement. Me too! It is not the intention of the Trustees to adopt procedures that are inconsistent with the Trust Agreement. if anything is going to be said, it needs to be consistent with the Trust Agreement _and_ reflect the desires and intent of the community. I agree. I think we are in synch. john ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
On 2008-04-10 07:04, John C Klensin wrote: --On Wednesday, 09 April, 2008 13:50 -0400 Ed Juskevicius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John, you wrote: Then recommend to the community that the Trust Agreement be changed. The Trustees are not talking about changing the terms of the Trust Agreement, so this should not be necessary. Good. But I was just trying to suggest, following what I thought I saw in Marshall's note, that, if the Trust Agreement is defective, one could try to change it. The other option is to conform to it. Ignoring it and adopting procedures or polices inconsistent with it --even if one believes those policies will never be triggered-- is a non-starter. I am worried about the IAOC and/or Trustees adopting procedures that are inconsistent with the Trust Agreement. Me too! It is not the intention of the Trustees to adopt procedures that are inconsistent with the Trust Agreement. if anything is going to be said, it needs to be consistent with the Trust Agreement _and_ reflect the desires and intent of the community. I agree. I think we are in synch. I agree with the above, and I assure everybody that the intent was always exactly that. There's definitely an error in the way the current procedures were drafted; it was my error, and I have evry confidence that the current Trustees will fix it. Brian ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
Hi, I agree with Russ. I think the trust and the IAOC have a bit different focus and it makes sense at times have a different chair for the different positions. This does not mean that we couldn't go in the future back to the common IAOC/Trust chair, but currently the work split would make sense. Cheers, Jonne. On 4/7/08 10:45 PM, ext Russ Housley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The IAOC and the IETF Trust have different focus. The idea behind the separate chair is to make sure that someone is paying attention to the items that need to be handled by each body in a timely manner. It is simply a mechanism to help ensure that noting is falling between the cracks. Russ --On April 4, 2008 11:50:23 AM +0200 Harald Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After considering the comments so far, I think I disagree with having a separate Trust chair. The idea behind making the IAOC be the Trustees was, among other things, to make sure that we didn't create yet another nexus of control in the labyrinth of committees; I understood the legal existence of the Trustees as something different (in name) from the IAOC to be strictly something we did for legal purposes If the IAOC chair is overburdened by having to manage the IAOC in two different contexts, get him (or her) a secretary. I agree with John's comment that leaving the current trustees in charge on dissolution of the IAOC is inappropriate; for one thing, that also removes all the recall mechanisms. Figure out something else to do in this case. Harald ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- Jonne Soininen Nokia Siemens Networks Tel: +358 40 527 46 34 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
Russ, The IETF Trust was set up as an instrument -- a naturally limited scope. The specific task you identify below (paying attention to items) could reasonably be addressed as Harald suggested. Giving the Trust a chair is at least a step towards acknowledging it as a separate organization (beyond instrument), and one could then examine whether the IAOC members are, in fact, the right people to populate it (for example). It certainly opens the doors to mission creep. My point, which I think is in line with something John Klensin said earlier, is that even though the current IAOC _intends_ this as a simple administrative change, the fact is it's a structural change that is open to be taken many places by future IAOCs and IETF communities, also of good intent. Given that, it would be nice to understand 1/ that the IAOC has considered this, and 2/ why other solutions are not considered viable. Leslie. P.S.: Also -- good luck with ever having a small meeting -- with 4 Chairs in the room, you'll be looking for end-tables pretty soon ;-) --On April 7, 2008 3:45:16 PM -0400 Russ Housley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The IAOC and the IETF Trust have different focus. The idea behind the separate chair is to make sure that someone is paying attention to the items that need to be handled by each body in a timely manner. It is simply a mechanism to help ensure that noting is falling between the cracks. Russ --On April 4, 2008 11:50:23 AM +0200 Harald Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After considering the comments so far, I think I disagree with having a separate Trust chair. The idea behind making the IAOC be the Trustees was, among other things, to make sure that we didn't create yet another nexus of control in the labyrinth of committees; I understood the legal existence of the Trustees as something different (in name) from the IAOC to be strictly something we did for legal purposes If the IAOC chair is overburdened by having to manage the IAOC in two different contexts, get him (or her) a secretary. I agree with John's comment that leaving the current trustees in charge on dissolution of the IAOC is inappropriate; for one thing, that also removes all the recall mechanisms. Figure out something else to do in this case. Harald ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
Leslie wrote: Giving the Trust a chair is at least a step towards acknowledging it as a separate organization ... I suppose you could interpret things this way, but that is not my view. Since its creation back in December 2005, all meetings of IETF Trustees have been convened and chaired by the IAOC Chair. As such, I think we have always had execute an administrative role of chairing IETF Trust meetings, and we've generally referred to that person as the Trust Chair in minutes and on the IETF Trust website. The recent posting of some new words for the Trust Administrative Procedures was an attempt to bring that document up to date, to reflect a desire amongst the current IAOC to load share the running of IAOC meetings and IETF Trust meetings by having two different people convene those meetings, and drive progress. That's it. Our intent is absolutely not to encourage mission creep. The above being said, it is quite clear from the excellent comments posted by several people on this topic that the Trustees have more work to do before the job of revising the text on the Administrative Procedures document is done. For example, John Klensin commented on some of the text in paragraph 12 that says If at any time the IAOC ceases to exist, the Trustees then in office shall remain in office That text is not new nor a proposed change to any existing Trust procedure. Those words are original text from December 2005. I am happy John took note of them in this round of discussions, as I don't think they exactly express what the Trustees intended for this clause to say. Best Regards, Ed Juskevicius -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Leslie Daigle Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 4:15 PM To: Russ Housley; IETF Discussion Cc: Harald Alvestrand Subject: Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures Russ, The IETF Trust was set up as an instrument -- a naturally limited scope. The specific task you identify below (paying attention to items) could reasonably be addressed as Harald suggested. Giving the Trust a chair is at least a step towards acknowledging it as a separate organization (beyond instrument), and one could then examine whether the IAOC members are, in fact, the right people to populate it (for example). It certainly opens the doors to mission creep. My point, which I think is in line with something John Klensin said earlier, is that even though the current IAOC _intends_ this as a simple administrative change, the fact is it's a structural change that is open to be taken many places by future IAOCs and IETF communities, also of good intent. Given that, it would be nice to understand 1/ that the IAOC has considered this, and 2/ why other solutions are not considered viable. Leslie. P.S.: Also -- good luck with ever having a small meeting -- with 4 Chairs in the room, you'll be looking for end-tables pretty soon ;-) --On April 7, 2008 3:45:16 PM -0400 Russ Housley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The IAOC and the IETF Trust have different focus. The idea behind the separate chair is to make sure that someone is paying attention to the items that need to be handled by each body in a timely manner. It is simply a mechanism to help ensure that noting is falling between the cracks. Russ --On April 4, 2008 11:50:23 AM +0200 Harald Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After considering the comments so far, I think I disagree with having a separate Trust chair. The idea behind making the IAOC be the Trustees was, among other things, to make sure that we didn't create yet another nexus of control in the labyrinth of committees; I understood the legal existence of the Trustees as something different (in name) from the IAOC to be strictly something we did for legal purposes If the IAOC chair is overburdened by having to manage the IAOC in two different contexts, get him (or her) a secretary. I agree with John's comment that leaving the current trustees in charge on dissolution of the IAOC is inappropriate; for one thing, that also removes all the recall mechanisms. Figure out something else to do in this case. Harald ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
I hope that other IAOC members will share their thoughts too. Here are mine. Right now, the IETF Trust is faced with more work than usual. The IPR WG has placed a significant task on the IETF Trust. Yet, all of the usual IAOC activities need to go forward on the usual schedule. The reason that I support this action it to ensure all of these tasks stay on track. We've already seen the need for an extra teleconference in April to make that happen, and I'm sure there will me more as the license text begins to be drafted. As others have already said, separate chairs seems like the right thing to the people serving on the IAOC right now. That may not be the desire in a year. I do not see this flexibility as a problem or a slippery slope. Russ At 04:14 PM 4/8/2008, Leslie Daigle wrote: Russ, The IETF Trust was set up as an instrument -- a naturally limited scope. The specific task you identify below (paying attention to items) could reasonably be addressed as Harald suggested. Giving the Trust a chair is at least a step towards acknowledging it as a separate organization (beyond instrument), and one could then examine whether the IAOC members are, in fact, the right people to populate it (for example). It certainly opens the doors to mission creep. My point, which I think is in line with something John Klensin said earlier, is that even though the current IAOC _intends_ this as a simple administrative change, the fact is it's a structural change that is open to be taken many places by future IAOCs and IETF communities, also of good intent. Given that, it would be nice to understand 1/ that the IAOC has considered this, and 2/ why other solutions are not considered viable. Leslie. P.S.: Also -- good luck with ever having a small meeting -- with 4 Chairs in the room, you'll be looking for end-tables pretty soon ;-) --On April 7, 2008 3:45:16 PM -0400 Russ Housley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The IAOC and the IETF Trust have different focus. The idea behind the separate chair is to make sure that someone is paying attention to the items that need to be handled by each body in a timely manner. It is simply a mechanism to help ensure that noting is falling between the cracks. Russ --On April 4, 2008 11:50:23 AM +0200 Harald Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After considering the comments so far, I think I disagree with having a separate Trust chair. The idea behind making the IAOC be the Trustees was, among other things, to make sure that we didn't create yet another nexus of control in the labyrinth of committees; I understood the legal existence of the Trustees as something different (in name) from the IAOC to be strictly something we did for legal purposes If the IAOC chair is overburdened by having to manage the IAOC in two different contexts, get him (or her) a secretary. I agree with John's comment that leaving the current trustees in charge on dissolution of the IAOC is inappropriate; for one thing, that also removes all the recall mechanisms. Figure out something else to do in this case. Harald ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
On Apr 8, 2008, at 1:14 PM, Leslie Daigle wrote: Giving the Trust a chair is at least a step towards acknowledging it as a separate organization (beyond instrument), and one could then examine whether the IAOC members are, in fact, the right people to populate it (for example). It certainly opens the doors to mission creep. Russ asked IAOC members to contribute. OK, here I am. It actually is a separate organization. It has separate meetings, separate minutes, and a separate membership - all trustees are IAOC members, and one certainly hopes that all IAOC members will agree to sign the form that makes them trustees, but that is not a requirement of IAOC membership. Specifically the chair of the trustees is *not* identified as the chair of the IAOC in the current procedures or in the trust - rather, meetings are convened by any trustee who happens to be present. Is that a problem? Well, it's not a big one, but it does seem odd. There are two logical ways to fix this. One is to identify the set of trustees with the IAOC - same committee, same chair, same meetings, same minutes. The other is to recognize the difference and decide that it's OK - the chair of the trustees might be the same as the chair of the IAOC but doesn't have to be, but leave the meetings, minutes, and committee separate as they are now. We chose the second, being the least change, and are suggesting it to the IETF community. ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
--On Tuesday, 08 April, 2008 16:30 -0400 Ed Juskevicius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... The above being said, it is quite clear from the excellent comments posted by several people on this topic that the Trustees have more work to do before the job of revising the text on the Administrative Procedures document is done. For example, John Klensin commented on some of the text in paragraph 12 that says If at any time the IAOC ceases to exist, the Trustees then in office shall remain in office That text is not new nor a proposed change to any existing Trust procedure. Those words are original text from December 2005. I am happy John took note of them in this round of discussions, as I don't think they exactly express what the Trustees intended for this clause to say. ... Ed, Both the IAOC and then the Trust were conceived and defined on the assumption that they were to isolate administrative functions and thereby relieve not only the IESG and IAB but the community from having to monitor them in detail. Speaking only for myself, I've been following that assumption, trusting you folks to do what needs to be done and to do so within the parameters and procedures laid out in the defining documents. While I'm certain there was no malice involved, I find it deeply troubling that a note that was supposed to be about something else turned up original text in a procedures document that is inconsistent with one of those defining documents, the Trust Agreement. I hope it doesn't add significantly to the workload, but I hope the IAOC will its practices for verifying consistency between its procedures and actions (and those of the Trust) and those defining documents. john ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
--On Tuesday, 08 April, 2008 14:25 -0700 Fred Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 8, 2008, at 1:14 PM, Leslie Daigle wrote: Giving the Trust a chair is at least a step towards acknowledging it as a separate organization (beyond instrument), and one could then examine whether the IAOC members are, in fact, the right people to populate it (for example). It certainly opens the doors to mission creep. Russ asked IAOC members to contribute. OK, here I am. It actually is a separate organization. It has separate meetings, separate minutes, and a separate membership - all trustees are IAOC members, and one certainly hopes that all IAOC members will agree to sign the form that makes them trustees, but that is not a requirement of IAOC membership. Specifically the chair of the trustees is *not* identified as the chair of the IAOC in the current procedures or in the trust - rather, meetings are convened by any trustee who happens to be present. Is that a problem? Well, it's not a big one, but it does seem odd. There are two logical ways to fix this. One is to identify the set of trustees with the IAOC - same committee, same chair, same meetings, same minutes. The other is to recognize the difference and decide that it's OK - the chair of the trustees might be the same as the chair of the IAOC but doesn't have to be, but leave the meetings, minutes, and committee separate as they are now. We chose the second, being the least change, and are suggesting it to the IETF community. Fred, I think I have to agree with where I think Leslie is headed here. Either the Trustees really are the IAOC members, with the separation merely being a formality required by the way the Trust was set up, or the Trust is a separate entity in fact as well as in legal theory. That same entity, plus or minus official roles and legalism model is your first logical way above and what I think the IETF thought it was agreeing to. If it is the second, then we should be having a discussion about whether the IETF wants a separate cast of characters, rather than making IAOC members automagically Trustees. More specifically, I may be missing something, but I can see only the following cases: (i) The workload of the Trust and IAOC combined has turned out to be larger than expected and has gotten too high. That is what I think Russ's note implies when he says ...faced with more work than usual. The IPR WG has placed a significant task on the IETF Trust. Yet, all of the usual IAOC activities need to go forward on the usual schedule If there aren't enough available cycles, then taking one of the same people and designating him or her as Trust Chair won't help with anything but (maybe) better knowledge about what is falling through the cracks. There still won't be enough cycles because no cycles have been added. If this is the problem, then we ought to be looking at a proposal to constitute the Trustees in some other way so as to bring in different people and more cycles, not a proposal to just pass some more titles around. (ii) There are enough cycles, but there is an organizational / tracking problem. Here I think I agree with Harald. If the problem is simply tracking, that is a secretarial task. Maybe the secretariat can do it. Maybe the Trust needs an Exec Director similar to the long-time IAB role of the same name. Note that either of those approaches would presumably add cycles and that the potential for conflict of interest if the Secretariat gets involved with managing the IAOC presumably does not exist with the Trust. But creating a Trust Chair who can track and advocate for getting work done on Trust issues while you also have a IAOC Chair who tracks and advocates for getting work done --done by exactly the same people-- on IAOC issues... well, I do not yet understand why that would be helpful. (iii) While functions differ, the two organizations are really the same. Nonetheless, there is a desire to create a new function and title here for reasons I, at least, still don't understand. For example, to the extent to which the Trust is separate from the IAOC, perhaps there is a need for a coordination role and that might require the two Chairs to sit down regularly and prioritize the work. But, if that is the plan, then the two Chairs take on real authority, which we have been assured that neither really has. So this case confuses me. john ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
John, On 2008-04-09 12:55, John C Klensin wrote: --On Tuesday, 08 April, 2008 16:30 -0400 Ed Juskevicius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... The above being said, it is quite clear from the excellent comments posted by several people on this topic that the Trustees have more work to do before the job of revising the text on the Administrative Procedures document is done. For example, John Klensin commented on some of the text in paragraph 12 that says If at any time the IAOC ceases to exist, the Trustees then in office shall remain in office That text is not new nor a proposed change to any existing Trust procedure. Those words are original text from December 2005. I am happy John took note of them in this round of discussions, as I don't think they exactly express what the Trustees intended for this clause to say. ... Ed, Both the IAOC and then the Trust were conceived and defined on the assumption that they were to isolate administrative functions and thereby relieve not only the IESG and IAB but the community from having to monitor them in detail. Speaking only for myself, I've been following that assumption, trusting you folks to do what needs to be done and to do so within the parameters and procedures laid out in the defining documents. While I'm certain there was no malice involved, I find it deeply troubling that a note that was supposed to be about something else turned up original text in a procedures document that is inconsistent with one of those defining documents, the Trust Agreement. Let's expand the quotation from the current, unamended Trust procedures slightly: If at any time the IAOC ceases to exist, the Trustees then in office shall remain in office and determine the future of the Trust in accordance with the Trust Agreement. I agree there's a drafting error - it should say If at any time the IAOC ceases to exist, the Trustees then in office shall remain in office SOLELY IN ORDER TO determine the future of the Trust in accordance with the Trust Agreement. That was certainly the intent. Brian I hope it doesn't add significantly to the workload, but I hope the IAOC will its practices for verifying consistency between its procedures and actions (and those of the Trust) and those defining documents. john ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
+1 from me. The role of the Trust Chair used to be pretty lightweight: either it still is, and Harald's advice is sound (get clerical help), or it no longer is, and a more detailed explanation of the experienced change would be helpful to the community being asked for comment. Leslie. --On April 4, 2008 11:50:23 AM +0200 Harald Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After considering the comments so far, I think I disagree with having a separate Trust chair. The idea behind making the IAOC be the Trustees was, among other things, to make sure that we didn't create yet another nexus of control in the labyrinth of committees; I understood the legal existence of the Trustees as something different (in name) from the IAOC to be strictly something we did for legal purposes If the IAOC chair is overburdened by having to manage the IAOC in two different contexts, get him (or her) a secretary. I agree with John's comment that leaving the current trustees in charge on dissolution of the IAOC is inappropriate; for one thing, that also removes all the recall mechanisms. Figure out something else to do in this case. Harald ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
The IAOC and the IETF Trust have different focus. The idea behind the separate chair is to make sure that someone is paying attention to the items that need to be handled by each body in a timely manner. It is simply a mechanism to help ensure that noting is falling between the cracks. Russ --On April 4, 2008 11:50:23 AM +0200 Harald Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After considering the comments so far, I think I disagree with having a separate Trust chair. The idea behind making the IAOC be the Trustees was, among other things, to make sure that we didn't create yet another nexus of control in the labyrinth of committees; I understood the legal existence of the Trustees as something different (in name) from the IAOC to be strictly something we did for legal purposes If the IAOC chair is overburdened by having to manage the IAOC in two different contexts, get him (or her) a secretary. I agree with John's comment that leaving the current trustees in charge on dissolution of the IAOC is inappropriate; for one thing, that also removes all the recall mechanisms. Figure out something else to do in this case. Harald ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
On Apr 3, 2008, at 1:54 PM, John C Klensin wrote: Probably the Trust and/or IAOC procedures or charter should be modified so that, in the event of the demise of the IAOC, the Trust falls firmly under direct IETF control (unless the IETF itself ceases to exist). The concept makes sense to me, but I'd be interested to understand how that would be implemented. All decisions of the trust happen in discussions on the IETF mailing list, and the consensus of the community as determined by J i m F l e m i n g rules? ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
Fred Baker wrote: On Apr 3, 2008, at 1:54 PM, John C Klensin wrote: Probably the Trust and/or IAOC procedures or charter should be modified so that, in the event of the demise of the IAOC, the Trust falls firmly under direct IETF control (unless the IETF itself ceases to exist). The concept makes sense to me, but I'd be interested to understand how that would be implemented. All decisions of the trust happen in discussions on the IETF mailing list, and the consensus of the community as determined by J i m F l e m i n g rules? As Jorge pointed out: This is covered by Section 6.1(c) of the Trust Agreement. If there are ever fewer than 3 Trustees, the IESG will appoint new Trustees. The existing Trustees do NOT become permanent appointments if the IAOC is dissolved. Rather, the IESG would appoint 3 Trustees until the IAOC or some successor is constituted. Ray ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
--On Monday, 07 April, 2008 16:55 -0400 Ray Pelletier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fred Baker wrote: On Apr 3, 2008, at 1:54 PM, John C Klensin wrote: Probably the Trust and/or IAOC procedures or charter should be modified so that, in the event of the demise of the IAOC, the Trust falls firmly under direct IETF control (unless the IETF itself ceases to exist). The concept makes sense to me, but I'd be interested to understand how that would be implemented. All decisions of the trust happen in discussions on the IETF mailing list, and the consensus of the community as determined by J i m F l e m i n g rules? As Jorge pointed out: This is covered by Section 6.1(c) of the Trust Agreement. If there are ever fewer than 3 Trustees, the IESG will appoint new Trustees. The existing Trustees do NOT become permanent appointments if the IAOC is dissolved. Rather, the IESG would appoint 3 Trustees until the IAOC or some successor is constituted. But this is inconsistent with the text that you circulated, which said, in part,... If at any time the IAOC ceases to exist, the Trustees then in office shall remain in office and determine the future of the Trust in accordance with the Trust Agreement. A common-sense reading of that statement says that, if the IAOC disappears, all Trustees stay in office and make decisions about the trust. Jorge's comment and the Trust agreement seem to say that, if the IAOC ceases to exist, the Trustees (with the possible exception of the ISOC two) cease to be Trustees and it is then the responsibility of the IESG to appoint new Trustees who would determine the future of the Trust. All I'm asking about this is what others have asked -- that the text you propose (and any related administrative procedures that the Trustees have agreed on) be brought into line with the clear intent of the Trust and IAOC agreements. john ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
John C Klensin wrote: --On Monday, 07 April, 2008 16:55 -0400 Ray Pelletier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fred Baker wrote: On Apr 3, 2008, at 1:54 PM, John C Klensin wrote: Probably the Trust and/or IAOC procedures or charter should be modified so that, in the event of the demise of the IAOC, the Trust falls firmly under direct IETF control (unless the IETF itself ceases to exist). The concept makes sense to me, but I'd be interested to understand how that would be implemented. All decisions of the trust happen in discussions on the IETF mailing list, and the consensus of the community as determined by J i m F l e m i n g rules? As Jorge pointed out: This is covered by Section 6.1(c) of the Trust Agreement. If there are ever fewer than 3 Trustees, the IESG will appoint new Trustees. The existing Trustees do NOT become permanent appointments if the IAOC is dissolved. Rather, the IESG would appoint 3 Trustees until the IAOC or some successor is constituted. But this is inconsistent with the text that you circulated, which said, in part,... If at any time the IAOC ceases to exist, the Trustees then in office shall remain in office and determine the future of the Trust in accordance with the Trust Agreement. A common-sense reading of that statement says that, if the IAOC disappears, all Trustees stay in office and make decisions about the trust. Jorge's comment and the Trust agreement seem to say that, if the IAOC ceases to exist, the Trustees (with the possible exception of the ISOC two) cease to be Trustees and it is then the responsibility of the IESG to appoint new Trustees who would determine the future of the Trust. All I'm asking about this is what others have asked -- that the text you propose (and any related administrative procedures that the Trustees have agreed on) be brought into line with the clear intent of the Trust and IAOC agreements. And that will be done, Ray john ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
After considering the comments so far, I think I disagree with having a separate Trust chair. The idea behind making the IAOC be the Trustees was, among other things, to make sure that we didn't create yet another nexus of control in the labyrinth of committees; I understood the legal existence of the Trustees as something different (in name) from the IAOC to be strictly something we did for legal purposes If the IAOC chair is overburdened by having to manage the IAOC in two different contexts, get him (or her) a secretary. I agree with John's comment that leaving the current trustees in charge on dissolution of the IAOC is inappropriate; for one thing, that also removes all the recall mechanisms. Figure out something else to do in this case. Harald ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
Ray Pelletier wrote: 12. The Trustees are the current members of the IAOC. When a member leaves the IAOC for whatever reason, he or she ceases to be a Trustee. When a new member joins the IAOC, he or she becomes a Trustee [ADD - upon their acceptance in writing]. This is already covered in the Trust agreement section 6.1, which states that the IAOC are Eligible Persons, and they become Trustees when they agree to that in writing. The addition makes the administrative procedures consistent with the trust agreement - but why say it twice? If at any time the IAOC ceases to exist, the Trustees then in office shall remain in office and determine the future of the Trust in accordance with the Trust Agreement. This is already covered in the Trust Agreement section 6.1 (c) - the expiration of the IAOC would reduce the number of Eligible Persons to zero, making the IESG, or the IESG's successor as the leadership of the IETF, repsonsible for picking at least 3 people to serve as temporary Trustees. So this proposed change would be in breach of the trust agreement - not good. The administrative procedures need to refer to section 6.1 of the trust agreement; creativity is bad. Harald ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
On 2008-04-04 22:57, Harald Alvestrand wrote: Ray Pelletier wrote: 12. The Trustees are the current members of the IAOC. When a member leaves the IAOC for whatever reason, he or she ceases to be a Trustee. When a new member joins the IAOC, he or she becomes a Trustee [ADD - upon their acceptance in writing]. This is already covered in the Trust agreement section 6.1, which states that the IAOC are Eligible Persons, and they become Trustees when they agree to that in writing. The addition makes the administrative procedures consistent with the trust agreement - but why say it twice? I agree with that - which is why it *is* a no-op as far as the adminstrative procedures document is concerned. I also agree with John Klensin that the process of inducting IAOC members must include this signature, but I'm not sure that we need to modify any documents, since RFC 4371 updates RFC 4071 and contains a normative reference to the Trust Agreement. I think the paper trail is already complete. If at any time the IAOC ceases to exist, the Trustees then in office shall remain in office and determine the future of the Trust in accordance with the Trust Agreement. This is already covered in the Trust Agreement section 6.1 (c) - the expiration of the IAOC would reduce the number of Eligible Persons to zero, making the IESG, or the IESG's successor as the leadership of the IETF, repsonsible for picking at least 3 people to serve as temporary Trustees. So this proposed change would be in breach of the trust agreement - not good. I believe that is correct. No IAOC means that all Trustees vanish instantly and the IESG has to take action. Good catch. Brian The administrative procedures need to refer to section 6.1 of the trust agreement; creativity is bad. Harald ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
-1. I think that given the pressure of work on our volunteer officials, we should allow load sharing wherever it's feasible. We have running code here - despite having the IAD's support and a volunteer Secretary for the Trust, two successive IAOC chairs have been overburdened. Brian On 2008-04-04 22:50, Harald Alvestrand wrote: After considering the comments so far, I think I disagree with having a separate Trust chair. The idea behind making the IAOC be the Trustees was, among other things, to make sure that we didn't create yet another nexus of control in the labyrinth of committees; I understood the legal existence of the Trustees as something different (in name) from the IAOC to be strictly something we did for legal purposes If the IAOC chair is overburdened by having to manage the IAOC in two different contexts, get him (or her) a secretary. I agree with John's comment that leaving the current trustees in charge on dissolution of the IAOC is inappropriate; for one thing, that also removes all the recall mechanisms. Figure out something else to do in this case. Harald ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
Ray, Some observations... (1) If someone doesn't become a Trustee until her or she is willing to sign something, one either needs to have explicit provisions for what happens if someone declines to sign or willingness to sign has to be an explicit condition for membership in the IAOC. Since several of the IAOC members are ex-officio, I don't really see how to do the latter, but it is probably possible. (2) Because some members of the IAOC are appointed by (or ex-officio from) other bodies, I would prefer that, if there is going to be a separate Trust Chair, that person be required to be an IETF appointee and subject to recall. No matter how many the Chair is nothing special rules one has, we all know from experience that long-term (as distinct from rotating) chairs of long-lived bodies tend to be treated, externally at least, as spokespeople, etc. (3) I don't recall seeing it before, which may be my fault, but the provision that, if the IAOC is dissolved, the Trustees become permanent appointments and get to determine the Trust's fate is very unattractive. Probably the Trust and/or IAOC procedures or charter should be modified so that, in the event of the demise of the IAOC, the Trust falls firmly under direct IETF control (unless the IETF itself ceases to exist). There might be other ways to do it, but perhaps the termination of the IAOC without other provisions should immediately add the entire IAB and/or IESG (or whichever one survives), ex-officio to the voting roster of Trustees for the duration. john --On Thursday, 03 April, 2008 15:17 -0400 Ray Pelletier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All, The Trustees of the IETF Trust are considering changing the Trust administrative procedures and seek community comment before doing so. The Trustees propose to take action at its April 17th meeting and will consider all comments received by that date. The proposed changes would: 1. Permit the Trustees to select a Trustee to act as the Chair. Current procedures state the IAOC Chair will convene and preside over the meetings 2. Recognize that the Chair holds no greater power than any other Trustee and therefore their vote as Chair does not become a deciding vote in cases where there is a tie vote. 3. Would synchronize the Administrative Procedures with the Trust Agreement by recognizing that an IAOC member becomes a Trustee upon their acceptance of the responibilties in writing, not merely by becoming a member of the IAOC. The proposed changes below modify paragraphs 2, 4 and 12 of the Trust Administrative Procedures located here: http://trustee.ietf.org/foundingdocuments.html Look forward to your comments. Ray Pelletier Trustee IAD Proposed Changes: Current #2 2. The meetings shall be convened and chaired by the IAOC Chair, or by any Trustee if the IAOC Chair is not available. Proposed #2 2. The Trustees shall select one Trustee to serve as the Chair of the Trust. The term of the Trust Chair shall be one year from the time of selection or the remaining time of his or her tenure as a Trustee, whichever is less. An individual may serve any number of terms as Chair, if selected by the Trustees. The Chair serves at the pleasure of the Trustees and may be removed from that position at any time by a vote of 2/3 of the voting Trustees, not counting the Trust Chair. The Chair shall convene and preside over meetings of the Trustees but shall have no other powers or authority beyond his or her powers as a Trustee. If the Trust Chair is not available, then any other Trustee may convene or preside over meetings of the Trustees in the absence of the Trust Chair. 4. The Trust Agreement defines the quorum and voting rules for a meeting. [Delete - If necessary, the Chair of the meeting shall hold the deciding vote.] Motions passed by electronic means between meetings shall be confirmed by a vote at the next possible meeting. 12. The Trustees are the current members of the IAOC. When a member leaves the IAOC for whatever reason, he or she ceases to be a Trustee. When a new member joins the IAOC, he or she becomes a Trustee [ADD - upon their acceptance in writing]. If at any time the IAOC ceases to exist, the Trustees then in office shall remain in office and determine the future of the Trust in accordance with the Trust Agreement. ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
John: (2) Because some members of the IAOC are appointed by (or ex-officio from) other bodies, I would prefer that, if there is going to be a separate Trust Chair, that person be required to be an IETF appointee and subject to recall. No matter how many the Chair is nothing special rules one has, we all know from experience that long-term (as distinct from rotating) chairs of long-lived bodies tend to be treated, externally at least, as spokespeople, etc. We already have recall procedures for IAOC members. They are documented in RFC 4071. Since the first requirement to be a Trustee is to be an IAOC member, nothing further seems to be needed. Russ ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
John, On 2008-04-04 09:54, John C Klensin wrote: Ray, Some observations... (1) If someone doesn't become a Trustee until her or she is willing to sign something, one either needs to have explicit provisions for what happens if someone declines to sign or willingness to sign has to be an explicit condition for membership in the IAOC. Since several of the IAOC members are ex-officio, I don't really see how to do the latter, but it is probably possible. This change to the admin procedures is a no-op, since it merely repeats what is said in 6.1(a) of the Trust Agreement. So it's clear enough: someone who hasn't signed is *not* a Trustee. If an IAOC member fails to sign and is not subject to IETF recall, that sounds like an HR issue to me. I don't see what we can do in our texts, so I support the proposed change (even though it's a no-op). (2) Because some members of the IAOC are appointed by (or ex-officio from) other bodies, I would prefer that, if there is going to be a separate Trust Chair, that person be required to be an IETF appointee and subject to recall. No matter how many the Chair is nothing special rules one has, we all know from experience that long-term (as distinct from rotating) chairs of long-lived bodies tend to be treated, externally at least, as spokespeople, etc. I agree that the two staff positions in the IAOC (IAD and ISOC President/CEO) should not be eligible as Trust chair, since there is no recall path. (Obviously I don't suggest that either of them is otherwise unsuitable ;-) (3) I don't recall seeing it before, which may be my fault, but the provision that, if the IAOC is dissolved, the Trustees become permanent appointments and get to determine the Trust's fate is very unattractive. Probably the Trust and/or IAOC procedures or charter should be modified so that, in the event of the demise of the IAOC, the Trust falls firmly under direct IETF control (unless the IETF itself ceases to exist). There might be other ways to do it, but perhaps the termination of the IAOC without other provisions should immediately add the entire IAB and/or IESG (or whichever one survives), ex-officio to the voting roster of Trustees for the duration. That really fills a small gap in the Trust Agreement (which talks about what happens if the IETF or IESG ceases to exist but not if the IAOC ceases to exist). I think you're correct that it could be improved, but can we separate that from the current proposed changes? Brian john --On Thursday, 03 April, 2008 15:17 -0400 Ray Pelletier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All, The Trustees of the IETF Trust are considering changing the Trust administrative procedures and seek community comment before doing so. The Trustees propose to take action at its April 17th meeting and will consider all comments received by that date. The proposed changes would: 1. Permit the Trustees to select a Trustee to act as the Chair. Current procedures state the IAOC Chair will convene and preside over the meetings 2. Recognize that the Chair holds no greater power than any other Trustee and therefore their vote as Chair does not become a deciding vote in cases where there is a tie vote. 3. Would synchronize the Administrative Procedures with the Trust Agreement by recognizing that an IAOC member becomes a Trustee upon their acceptance of the responibilties in writing, not merely by becoming a member of the IAOC. The proposed changes below modify paragraphs 2, 4 and 12 of the Trust Administrative Procedures located here: http://trustee.ietf.org/foundingdocuments.html Look forward to your comments. Ray Pelletier Trustee IAD Proposed Changes: Current #2 2. The meetings shall be convened and chaired by the IAOC Chair, or by any Trustee if the IAOC Chair is not available. Proposed #2 2. The Trustees shall select one Trustee to serve as the Chair of the Trust. The term of the Trust Chair shall be one year from the time of selection or the remaining time of his or her tenure as a Trustee, whichever is less. An individual may serve any number of terms as Chair, if selected by the Trustees. The Chair serves at the pleasure of the Trustees and may be removed from that position at any time by a vote of 2/3 of the voting Trustees, not counting the Trust Chair. The Chair shall convene and preside over meetings of the Trustees but shall have no other powers or authority beyond his or her powers as a Trustee. If the Trust Chair is not available, then any other Trustee may convene or preside over meetings of the Trustees in the absence of the Trust Chair. 4. The Trust Agreement defines the quorum and voting rules for a meeting. [Delete - If necessary, the Chair of the meeting shall hold the deciding vote.] Motions passed by electronic means between meetings shall be confirmed by a vote at the next possible meeting. 12. The Trustees are the current members
Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
--On Friday, 04 April, 2008 11:39 +1300 Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John, On 2008-04-04 09:54, John C Klensin wrote: Ray, Some observations... (1) If someone doesn't become a Trustee until her or she is willing to sign something, one either needs to have explicit provisions for what happens if someone declines to sign or willingness to sign has to be an explicit condition for membership in the IAOC. Since several of the IAOC members are ex-officio, I don't really see how to do the latter, but it is probably possible. This change to the admin procedures is a no-op, since it merely repeats what is said in 6.1(a) of the Trust Agreement. So it's clear enough: someone who hasn't signed is *not* a Trustee. If an IAOC member fails to sign and is not subject to IETF recall, that sounds like an HR issue to me. I don't see what we can do in our texts, so I support the proposed change (even though it's a no-op). Brian, the recall process, even if we figured out how to use it in practice rather than in theory, takes months. So, if we do things this way, we need to change the selection requirements for an IAOC member (and that includes the IETF Chair and IAB Chair) to include a formal commitment to willingness to sign. That is why this proposed change, even though I understand why you call it a no-op, may be wrong. Wouldn't it be better to figure out a way to get someone to sign as part of the relevant selection process, effective when they are seated as IAOC members, so that we don't have a potential race condition or problem after they are seated? See the difference? (2) Because some members of the IAOC are appointed by (or ex-officio from) other bodies, I would prefer that, if there is going to be a separate Trust Chair, that person be required to be an IETF appointee and subject to recall. No matter how many the Chair is nothing special rules one has, we all know from experience that long-term (as distinct from rotating) chairs of long-lived bodies tend to be treated, externally at least, as spokespeople, etc. I agree that the two staff positions in the IAOC (IAD and ISOC President/CEO) should not be eligible as Trust chair, since there is no recall path. (Obviously I don't suggest that either of them is otherwise unsuitable ;-) Well, the IAD _is_ unsuitable, not because of any issues with the incumbent, but because the optics of having the IAD, who is selected and supervised by an IAOC subcommittee, chairing the Trust (or the IAOC for that matter) are just not attractive. But I also said IETF appointee, presumably including the IETF Chair, the IAB Chair, and those appointed by the IAB, IESG, and Nomcom. You seized on the subject to recall part, which was less important, especially how frequently we use the recall process to correct problems. Perhaps I should have said IETF appointee and therefore subject to the IETF's current version of public flogging instead. If we are going to preserve the IETF-ISOC relationship that was so carefully negotiated in RFC 4071/BCP 101, then I don't think that an ISOC-appointed member of the IAOC should be permitted to be IETF Trust Chair. (3) I don't recall seeing it before, which may be my fault, but the provision that, if the IAOC is dissolved, the Trustees become permanent appointments and get to determine the Trust's fate is very unattractive. Probably the Trust and/or IAOC procedures or charter should be modified so that, in the event of the demise of the IAOC, the Trust falls firmly under direct IETF control (unless the IETF itself ceases to exist). There might be other ways to do it, but perhaps the termination of the IAOC without other provisions should immediately add the entire IAB and/or IESG (or whichever one survives), ex-officio to the voting roster of Trustees for the duration. That really fills a small gap in the Trust Agreement (which talks about what happens if the IETF or IESG ceases to exist but not if the IAOC ceases to exist). I think you're correct that it could be improved, but can we separate that from the current proposed changes? Sure. Especially if someone explains why the other changes have to be done on a hurry-up basis. john ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
