Re: Trust membership [Re: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility]
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:09 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: On 2011-09-21 05:44, Olaf Kolkman wrote: snip The Trust would need to commit to allowing these advisors to join their meetings too. But that can be done in other ways than the Trust Agreement. (so yes, I agree with this line of thought) Obviously this all assumes there is a consensus for changing the I* chairs role ...exactly. I'm far from convinced about that. I think the real need is to figure out how to make the IAOC an Oversight committee rather than it getting involved in executive decisions, and to figure out how to make the IAB an Architecture board instead of getting involved in administrative matters. I'm new to this level of innerworking in the IETF, and a bit more confused after this thread. I did ask what was the core problem sort of and got two excellent answers but none of the convinced me that the draft/proposal at hand are the right answer to an obvious problem. However, Brian's suggestion above looks like a better road ahead since it get closer to the core of the problem, the workload and address that. -- Roger Jorgensen | rog...@gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | ro...@jorgensen.no ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Evolutionary culture change (was: Trust membership [Re: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility])
At 22:47 20-09-2011, Olaf Kolkman wrote: For the IAOC and IAB these will be difficult challenges that cannot be enforced externally but also need an evolutionary culture change. Not only in the I* bodies themselves but also how the NOMCOM. The IAOC has been around for six years. The IESG has been around for 25 years and the IAB for 27 years. Half of IESG and IAB are picked by the community each year. As this is the IETF, it's a bit more complicated than that (see NomCom). The community only have a say on one quarter of the IAOC. The current NomCom looks like an inverted image of NomCom from a cultural perspective. NomCom will make a safe bet this year. If the community wants to force an IAOC change, it would have to be done by BCP. In a way, the draft is attempting to do that. The comments posted by Roger Jørgensen are more interesting than the politics surrounding the change. He mentioned being a bit more confused after this thread. It took 20 years for the IETF to take control over its administrative operations. The functions cover setting meeting fees, deciding how far you should fly to attend a meeting, deciding on how to prevent the IETF from being sued, etc. It is unlikely that an evolutionary culture change will come from within the IAOC. Being kicked by the ARSE is not an evolutionary change. :-) Regards, -sm ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Trust membership [Re: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility]
On 20/09/2011 00:30, Brian E Carpenter wrote: [...] the I* Chairs would remain as Trustees. Since that is (in my experience) a large part of an IAOC member's time commitment, the problem you're trying to solve would not be solved, IMHO, unless the Trust amended the Trust Agreement too. That's all I wanted to point out. My experience is different: the Trust is little work on average but there are huge spikes, in particular when legal provisions are being discussed. However, there are issues that are typically also discussed in the IESG or IAB, the I* chairs are already involved with their I* hat, and the additional workload to discuss it in the Trust is small. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 -- There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day. (John Glanfield, on an engineering project) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Trust membership [Re: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility]
--On Monday, September 19, 2011 17:58 -0500 Jorge Contreras cntre...@gmail.com wrote: ... Brian's interpretation is correct. If someone is an IAOC member, voting or not, then he/she is a Trustee with full fiduciary duties. To change this, the Trust Agreement would need to be amended. Once again, the provisions that make amending the Trust Agreement particularly problematic have expired. Let's figure out what the Right Thing is to do from the standpoint of the IETF and the community, then figure out what needs to be fixed up and and fix it. Making decisions on the basis of, e.g., not modifying the Trust Agreement, even when contrary decisions are in the best interests of the IETF and the broader community would violate the fundamental requirements that the IASA and, insofar as it is separate, the Trust, serve the best interests of the IETF and the Community. Regardless of what is said about fiduciary duties, I believe that if the Trust or its membership ever start to believe that the Trust has interests separate from the interests of the IETF (including that make the Internet work better goal) and an obligation to favor those Trust interests over the IETF one, then we would have a really serious problem in need of fixing. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Trust membership [Re: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility]
Dear Brian, Olaf; On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: On 2011-09-19 20:05, Olaf Kolkman wrote: snip Also, the new section 2.3, which is incorrectly titled but presumably is intended to be IETF Trust membership seems to me to be inconsistent with the Trust Agreement. The Trust Agreement states that the Eligible Persons (to become Trustees) are each a then-current member of the IAOC, duly appointed and in good standing in accordance with the procedures of the IAOC established pursuant to IETF document BCP 101 [as amended]. That doesn't exclude the non-voting members of the IAOC, which is why the IAD is already a Trustee. To change this, the Trust would have to change the Trust Agreement. To be clear, I'm not saying this can't be done, but it can't be ignored either. Yes, it is incorrectly titled. As far as I understand the trust agreement the voting members and the IAD are members of the trust. If the 'chairs' are non-voting members of the IAOC then the idea is that they would not be trustees and a modification of the trust agreement is not needed. That can be clarified. If the chairs should be trustees (are you arguing that?) then I agree, a trust agreement modification is needed. The Trust Agreement and *only* the Trust Agreement defines who is a Trustee. At the moment it says that members of the IAOC under BCP 101 are Trustees, without any qualification such as voting. The Trust Agreement is at http://iaoc.ietf.org/docs/IETF-Trust-Agreement-Executed-12-15-05.pdf It says (Section 3.1) that Eligible persons are those IAOC members duly appointed and in good standing in accordance with the procedures of the IAOC established pursuant to IETF document BCP 101, RFC 4071 (April 2005), and any duly approved successor documents, updates, or amendments thereto. The draft says This document updates BCP101 http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp101 ([RFC4071 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4071] and [RFC4371 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4371]). Assuming it goes forward, it would thus eventually become an update or amendment to BCP101, and so by just changing who the IAOC members are, and thus who the Trustees are, would NOT IMO require a change to the Trust Agreement. It would be automatic. All Trustees are currently voting trustees. I would note that the ISOC Board of Trustees has at least one non-voting Trustee, and the Trust Amendment could in theory be modified in a similar fashion. (Modifying the TA can now be done with a majority vote of the Trustees currently in office.) However, the Trust Agreement (TA) is a legal document. I would not underrate the difficulty (and legal expense) of modifying it, and of not introducing bugs while modifying it. Even though the Trustees _can_ now do this, I would not actually do it if avoidable, and I think that it is in this case. Note that the Trust Agreement says almost nothing about meetings. The Trust Administrative Procedures (TAP) could easily be modified to allow for permanent Ex-Officio liaisons, and the TAP is not a legal document of the same standing as the TA. So, what I would recommend is that - Olaf's draft create new IAOC members with full powers, as it currently does. These would, assuming the draft progresses, automatically become Trustees, without any modification of the Trust Agreement. - Olaf's wording be changed to make the IAB Chair, IETF Chair and ISOC CEO into ex-officio and non-voting Liaisons to the IAOC and the Trust. - The TAP then be modified to recognize the status of these new ex-officio and non-voting Liaisons. These Liaisons are not IAOC members, thus not Trustees. With this procedure, I see no reason to modify the Trust Agreement. Regards Marshall So if we make the I* Chairs non-voting members of the IAOC by formally updating BCP 101, the I* Chairs would remain as Trustees. Since that is (in my experience) a large part of an IAOC member's time commitment, the problem you're trying to solve would not be solved, IMHO, unless the Trust amended the Trust Agreement too. That's all I wanted to point out. 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: Trust membership [Re: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility]
On Sep 20, 2011, at 6:25 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: - Olaf's wording be changed to make the IAB Chair, IETF Chair and ISOC CEO into ex-officio and non-voting Liaisons to the IAOC and the Trust. - The TAP then be modified to recognize the status of these new ex-officio and non-voting Liaisons. These Liaisons are not IAOC members, thus not Trustees. I would not call them liaisons (as they do not liaise) but advisors. With this procedure, I see no reason to modify the Trust Agreement. The Trust would need to commit to allowing these advisors to join their meetings too. But that can be done in other ways than the Trust Agreement. (so yes, I agree with this line of thought) Obviously this all assumes there is a consensus for changing the I* chairs role --Olaf Olaf M. KolkmanNLnet Labs http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Trust membership [Re: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility]
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Olaf Kolkman o...@nlnetlabs.nl wrote: On Sep 20, 2011, at 6:25 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: - Olaf's wording be changed to make the IAB Chair, IETF Chair and ISOC CEO into ex-officio and non-voting Liaisons to the IAOC and the Trust. - The TAP then be modified to recognize the status of these new ex-officio and non-voting Liaisons. These Liaisons are not IAOC members, thus not Trustees. I would not call them liaisons (as they do not liaise) but advisors. WFM With this procedure, I see no reason to modify the Trust Agreement. The Trust would need to commit to allowing these advisors to join their meetings too. But that can be done in other ways than the Trust Agreement. (so yes, I agree with this line of thought) Obviously this all assumes there is a consensus for changing the I* chairs role Yes. And that should include prior agreement by the Trustees to make this change. (As with any last call, if the Trustees have objections, they should be dealt with before the RFC is published.) I would be glad to schedule such a discussion and vote at an appropriate time, assuming I am still Chair at that time. Regards Marshall --Olaf Olaf M. KolkmanNLnet Labs http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Trust membership [Re: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility]
On 2011-09-21 05:44, Olaf Kolkman wrote: On Sep 20, 2011, at 6:25 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: - Olaf's wording be changed to make the IAB Chair, IETF Chair and ISOC CEO into ex-officio and non-voting Liaisons to the IAOC and the Trust. - The TAP then be modified to recognize the status of these new ex-officio and non-voting Liaisons. These Liaisons are not IAOC members, thus not Trustees. I would not call them liaisons (as they do not liaise) but advisors. With this procedure, I see no reason to modify the Trust Agreement. Agreed, and it would be cheaper to do it this way, but... The Trust would need to commit to allowing these advisors to join their meetings too. But that can be done in other ways than the Trust Agreement. (so yes, I agree with this line of thought) Obviously this all assumes there is a consensus for changing the I* chairs role ...exactly. I'm far from convinced about that. I think the real need is to figure out how to make the IAOC an Oversight committee rather than it getting involved in executive decisions, and to figure out how to make the IAB an Architecture board instead of getting involved in administrative matters. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Trust membership [Re: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility]
Hi Brian, On 9/21/11 12:09 AM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: [snip] The Trust would need to commit to allowing these advisors to join their meetings too. But that can be done in other ways than the Trust Agreement. (so yes, I agree with this line of thought) Obviously this all assumes there is a consensus for changing the I* chairs role ...exactly. I'm far from convinced about that. I think the real need is to figure out how to make the IAOC an Oversight committee rather than it getting involved in executive decisions, and to figure out how to make the IAB an Architecture board instead of getting involved in administrative matters. I totally agree. In addition, if the people that have been given at least theoretically highest positions in the IETF leadership would not like to take the responsibility of the trust, who then would? These people are trustees in my mind as the puck of responsibility ends at them. I repeat what I said earlier, I believe the problem is real and needs to be addressed. I think it is good, Olaf, you brought it up. However, I believe this is a matter of organizing *internally* in the IAOC rather than changing the rules. Perhaps they have to hire help, or get even more of it from the ISOC. Cheers, Jonne. 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: Trust membership [Re: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility]
On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:09 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: ...exactly. I'm far from convinced about that. I think the real need is to figure out how to make the IAOC an Oversight committee rather than it getting involved in executive decisions, and to figure out how to make the IAB an Architecture board instead of getting involved in administrative matters. On the IAB: I do not agree that the focus needs to be on the A of architecture. There is not a lot that the IAB does that is not in its charter. I believe that the focus needs to be on the B of board. In other words, just as in the IAOC more oversight. During my tenure we took a number of steps to move the handy work into programs and initiatives in which the execution of projects could take place so that the IAB members themselves could oversee but that journey was far from complete. For the IAOC and IAB these will be difficult challenges that cannot be enforced externally but also need an evolutionary culture change . Not only in the I* bodies themselves but also how the NOMCOM. --Olaf Olaf M. KolkmanNLnet Labs http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Trust membership [Re: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility]
On 2011-09-19 20:05, Olaf Kolkman wrote: snip Also, the new section 2.3, which is incorrectly titled but presumably is intended to be IETF Trust membership seems to me to be inconsistent with the Trust Agreement. The Trust Agreement states that the Eligible Persons (to become Trustees) are each a then-current member of the IAOC, duly appointed and in good standing in accordance with the procedures of the IAOC established pursuant to IETF document BCP 101 [as amended]. That doesn't exclude the non-voting members of the IAOC, which is why the IAD is already a Trustee. To change this, the Trust would have to change the Trust Agreement. To be clear, I'm not saying this can't be done, but it can't be ignored either. Yes, it is incorrectly titled. As far as I understand the trust agreement the voting members and the IAD are members of the trust. If the 'chairs' are non-voting members of the IAOC then the idea is that they would not be trustees and a modification of the trust agreement is not needed. That can be clarified. If the chairs should be trustees (are you arguing that?) then I agree, a trust agreement modification is needed. The Trust Agreement and *only* the Trust Agreement defines who is a Trustee. At the moment it says that members of the IAOC under BCP 101 are Trustees, without any qualification such as voting. So if we make the I* Chairs non-voting members of the IAOC by formally updating BCP 101, the I* Chairs would remain as Trustees. Since that is (in my experience) a large part of an IAOC member's time commitment, the problem you're trying to solve would not be solved, IMHO, unless the Trust amended the Trust Agreement too. That's all I wanted to point out. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Trust membership [Re: IAOC: delegating ex-officio responsibility]
As far as I understand the trust agreement the voting members and the IAD are members of the trust. If the 'chairs' are non-voting members of the IAOC then the idea is that they would not be trustees and a modification of the trust agreement is not needed. That can be clarified. If the chairs should be trustees (are you arguing that?) then I agree, a trust agreement modification is needed. The Trust Agreement and *only* the Trust Agreement defines who is a Trustee. At the moment it says that members of the IAOC under BCP 101 are Trustees, without any qualification such as voting. So if we make the I* Chairs non-voting members of the IAOC by formally updating BCP 101, the I* Chairs would remain as Trustees. Since that is (in my experience) a large part of an IAOC member's time commitment, the problem you're trying to solve would not be solved, IMHO, unless the Trust amended the Trust Agreement too. That's all I wanted to point out. Brian Brian's interpretation is correct. If someone is an IAOC member, voting or not, then he/she is a Trustee with full fiduciary duties. To change this, the Trust Agreement would need to be amended. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
