Following up the point I made in response to Mike St.Johns
a couple days ago, I went back through the document to see if/how
it distinguishes between being adequately responsive and
accountable to the community, from having appropriate
chains of accountability for contractual purposes (and
no micro
On Friday, January 21, 2005 15:42:32 +0100 Harald Tveit Alvestrand
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From Jorge:
3. Legal Advice.
(Apologies if I sound biased about this one, but)
Although the IAD and IASA have responsibility for negotiating and
approving all contracts relating to IETF, there is n
As part of its work to look at potential agreements with service
providers, the IASA Transition Team has been reviewing the
possibilities for IETF secretariat functions for 2005. As you
have heard, CNRI has committed to running the IETF Secretariat for
2005, as it has done in the past, unless and
On Friday, January 21, 2005 17:10:01 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
More from Jorge:
2. Trademarks.
There has been a lot of discussion about ownership and maintenance
of IETF-related trademarks. I would suggest that one of the IAD/IASA
duties b
On Friday, January 21, 2005 15:40:31 +0100 Harald Tveit Alvestrand
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
ISOC will permit IASA and its designee(s) to have sole control and
custodianship of such Developed Software, and ISOC
will not utilize or access such Developed Software in
connection with any ISOC func
Thanks for the clarification; I think your wording, the one without the
mention of the cost center,. is just fine.
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: "Carl Malamud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Tom Petch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Margaret Wasserman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Harald Tveit
Alvestra
> "Brian" == Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Brian> Reviewing procedures is fine. Reviewing specific awards
Brian> isn't, IMHO, which is all I intended my words to exclude.
Attempting to undo a specific award once things are signed (or
delaying signing) is generally unac
Hi Tom -
> Ah ships in the night; yes, Carl, I think this is the best wording so
> far.
>
> Two queries in my mind. Looking at the ISOC Report 2003, I notice it
> uses revenue rather than income that you use; is there any hidden
> meaning in that? eg because it is incorporated as a nonprofit
> o
Ah ships in the night; yes, Carl, I think this is the best wording so
far.
Two queries in my mind. Looking at the ISOC Report 2003, I notice it
uses revenue rather than income that you use; is there any hidden
meaning in that? eg because it is incorporated as a nonprofit
organization?
And readin
--On Friday, 21 January, 2005 15:47 +0100 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With the input resulting from discussions with Lynn Duval and
> Jorge Contreras, I suggest that we can now close ticket #729 -
> "General - Check with accountants & leagal advisors" as "done".
Harald,
--On Friday, 21 January, 2005 10:44 +0100 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As you will probably be totally unsurprised to see, I'm
> pushing back the prospective dates for IASA BCP approval again.
> I think we are "close, but not finished" with the various
> clarifications an
On 1/21/2005 10:49, Bruce Lilly allegedly wrote:
Verbosity aside, I don't believe that "sole control and custodianship"
applies to open source software. I am not a lawyer, but the "Old text"
seems not only more easily comprehended [I am reminded of Jonathan
Swift's satirical look at lawyers in Gull
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
More from Jorge:
2. Trademarks.
There has been a lot of discussion about ownership and maintenance
of IETF-related trademarks. I would suggest that one of the IAD/IASA
duties be to consider appropriate trademark protection for the IETF's
identifying names (such as
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
...
My biggest problem with this is size..
I think in the case of text resulting from legal review, that
is not something we should worry about.
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mai
> Date: 2005-01-21 09:40
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> In this and a few later messages, I'm relaying comments from Jorge
> Contreras, the IETF's pro bono legal counsel.
>
> 1. ÂIntellectual Property. ÂI thi
So, I agree with you that this doesn't have to say "of that cost
center" and could
easily say "the IASA". But, when you say "in the form of a P&L statement",
I get a little scared ... as you know from your periodic reviews of the ISOC
overall finances, an income statement without a balance sheet
Broadly I trust ISOC to do what is right and want a form of words that
will keep me informed as to how we are doing financially. I endorse
Harald's change from IETF to IASA but jibbed at general ledger as having
a technical meaning that to me was too limited. Going back to sccounts,
as Carl sugge
Hi Margaret -
Maybe we agree, but I'm not sure. I used the following phrase:
periodic summary of the IASA accounts in the form of
standard financial statements that reflect the income, expenses, assets, and
liabilities of that cost center.
So, I agree with you that this doesn't have
With the input resulting from discussions with Lynn Duval and Jorge
Contreras, I suggest that we can now close ticket #729 - "General - Check
with accountants & leagal advisors" as "done".
Harald
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
h
Editorial Comments from Jorge:
4., 3rd paragraph below bulleted list: The 2-year term rule does not apply
during the initial terms. Thus, this paragraph should start out saying
"Subject to paragraph 2 of Section 4.2, appointed members"
5.5: I think that the 2nd sentence is not clear, as i
From Jorge:
3. Legal Advice.
(Apologies if I sound biased about this one, but)
Although the IAD and IASA have responsibility for negotiating and
approving all contracts relating to IETF, there is no indication that they
are expected or even encouraged to seek legal advice
regarding these cont
More from Jorge:
2. Trademarks.
There has been a lot of discussion about ownership and maintenance
of IETF-related trademarks. I would suggest that one of the IAD/IASA
duties be to consider appropriate trademark protection for the IETF's
identifying names (such as "IETF", "IRTF", etc.), and the
In this and a few later messages, I'm relaying comments from Jorge
Contreras, the IETF's pro bono legal counsel.
1. Intellectual Property. I think I understand the reason for including
an explicit requirement that IP created in suppor
Harald suggests
To the extent allowed by law, any balance in the IASA accounts, any
IETF-specific intellectual property rights, and any IETF-specific data and
tools shall also transition to the new entity. Other terms shall be
negotiated between the IETF and ISOC.
works for me
Scott
___
I agree with Harald - lets leave it as-is
Margaret wrote:
>> 8. The IASA, in cooperation with ISOC, shall ensure that sufficient
>
> s/shall ensure/shall attempt to ensure/ ??
>
>> reserves exist to keep the IETF operational in the case of
>> unexpected events such as income shortfalls.
I
Harald points out and suggests
The question was what the purpose of the last line was.
The discussion seems to have revealed that this is good business practice
(don't accept gifts of white elephants), and there's no real need to change
the text.
agree (he says agreeing to his own word
At 2:36 PM +0100 1/21/05, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
So picking up a version suggested by Jeff Hutzelman, I suggest that
we replace this paragraph with the shorter version:
The IASA expects ISOC to build and provide that operational reserve,
through whatever mechanisms ISOC deems appropriat
Harald suggests:
The IASA expects ISOC to build and provide that operational reserve,
through whatever mechanisms ISOC deems appropriate.
looks good to me
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I generally agree with Tom and Carl.
The community needs visibility in to the IASA finances, sufficient to
ensure that the IETF's money is spent on IETF-related activities with
a reasonable level of prudence. I don't think that our BCP needs to
specify a reporting methodology that the IAD/IAOC
ps - I'm not sure that its all that useful to be able to appeal/review
awards if they can not be overturned - apealing or reviewing
the process that was followed is fine but appealling the actual
award seems broken
this may seem like a wording nit but I think it would properly set
expectations
S
Margaret sez:
> None of the versions of the text that we are looking at (the current
> BCP, Harald's, mine, Scott Brim's...) indicate that a request for
> review of an IAD or IAOC decision could result in: (1) reversing a
> ...
if all of the proposed text actually said (as the -04 text does)
Several people have used the term "DoS attack" in relation to a
review/appeals process as if that were a well-defined and
well-understood phenomenon, and I don't understand what it means.
Here is one example that doesn't make sense to me:
At 8:39 AM -0500 1/21/05, Scott Bradner wrote:
Brian clar
Margaret said:
Any balance in the IASA accounts, any IETF-specific intellectual
property rights, and any IETF-specific data and tools shall also
transition to the new entity. Other terms shall be negotiated
between the IETF and ISOC.
Just a nit, perhaps... It is my understanding that ISOC can only
Margaret wrote:
8. The IASA, in cooperation with ISOC, shall ensure that sufficient
s/shall ensure/shall attempt to ensure/ ??
reserves exist to keep the IETF operational in the case of
unexpected events such as income shortfalls.
I think this should remain as-is. There are other principles in the
The section under discussion reads:
6. There shall be a detailed public accounting to separately
identify all funds available to and all expenditures relating to
the IETF and to the IASA, including any donations, of funds or
in-kind, received by ISOC for IETF-related activities. In-kind
donations s
The text under discussion reads:
The IASA expects ISOC to build and provide that operational reserve,
through whatever mechanisms ISOC deems appropriate: line of credit,
financial reserves, meeting cancellation insurance, and so forth. In
the long term, financial reserves are preferable; it should
[I'm trying to get closure on all the tickets, as usual not in priority
order]
Margaret commented:
There are three different descriptions of the IASA budget process (one
principle and two later sections), and they don't seem to agree with each
other about what role the ISOC BoT plays in t
how about (in response to Elwyn's comment)
Although the IAD is an ISOC employee, he or she works under the
direction of the IAOC. A committee of the IAOC is responsible for
hiring and firing of the IAD, for reviewing the performance and for
setting the compensation of the IAD. The
Brian clarifies:
> Reviewing procedures is fine. Reviewing specific awards isn't, IMHO,
> which is all I intended my words to exclude.
I agree with Brian - allowing the review of specific awards could
easily cause the DoS attack that I've been warning against
Scott
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On fredag, januar 21, 2005 11:49:04 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, but the stuff about decision review in Harald's text is pretty
clear that its the "person" or "body" that's subject to review.
Mike, yes, this text is problematic. But it
Fred,
there are multiple ways of analyzing history - what you say is certainly
true if you include the cost of the RFC Editor, but do not consider the
contributions from the ISOC Platinum program to the standards pillar to be
"designated donations" in support of the IETF. But that's water under
Thanks Elwyn!
One quick comment:
--On torsdag, januar 20, 2005 16:16:02 + Elwyn Davies
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
S3, para 3 (also S3.2): Is it a matter of being mealy mouthed, or does
the IAOC sub-committee (effectively) not have firing as well as hiring
powers over the IAD?
The phrase
Thi
--On fredag, januar 21, 2005 11:49:04 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, but the stuff about decision review in Harald's text is pretty
clear that its the "person" or "body" that's subject to review.
Mike, yes, this text is problematic. But it isn't in the draft.
I don't fin
Michael StJohns wrote:
> 3.5 Decision review
>
> In the case where someone questions a decision of the IAD or the
> IAOC, he or she may ask for a formal review of the decision.
>
> The request for review is addressed to the person or body that made
> the decision. It is up to that body to de
Sam Hartman wrote:
"Brian" == Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Brian> I think that is not really a concern. If someone has a
Brian> grievance that is serious enough for them to hire a lawyer
Brian> to make a complaint, no words in an RFC will stop them. But
Brian> the
***
This message is proprietary to Future Software Limited (FSL)
and is intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it
is addressed. It may contain privileged or confidential information
and should not be circu
As you will probably be totally unsurprised to see, I'm pushing back the
prospective dates for IASA BCP approval again.
I think we are "close, but not finished" with the various clarifications
and process polishing - and still don't have a workable consensus on the
appeals issue.
I also have som
47 matches
Mail list logo
