The discussion of legal advice (Jorge's third point) seems to have revealed
that there are two issues here:
- Should legal advice be sought? That's almost too obvious to state, but
might be worth stating anyway.. I suggest that we add to paragraph 4 of
section 3.1, IAD responsibilities.
Scott Bradner wrote:
I prefer NEW(2)
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 members of
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
The discussion of legal advice (Jorge's third point) seems to have
revealed that there are two issues here:
- Should legal advice be sought? That's almost too obvious to state, but
might be worth stating anyway.. I suggest that we add to paragraph 4
of
Harald, I'm with you except perhaps for the data protection
issue. Elwyn is right that laws in this area vary widely
and if, for example, a subcontractor is located in the EU
they will be much more constrained about use of personal
data than in the US.
I suggest adding something to the IAD's
Sam Hartman wrote:
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
Harald suggests teh following
The IAD negotiates service contracts, with input, as appropriate,
from other bodies, including legal advice, and with review, as
appropriate, by the IAOC. The
IAOC should establish guidelines for what level of review is expected
based on contract
--On 25. januar 2005 11:40 +0100 Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Harald, I'm with you except perhaps for the data protection
issue. Elwyn is right that laws in this area vary widely
and if, for example, a subcontractor is located in the EU
they will be much more constrained about use
Hi Brian,
At 11:48 AM +0100 1/25/05, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Exactly. And we need to be sure that the appeals text allows for
review of procedures, including the kind of case study you suggest,
without allowing the appeal procedure to be used for commercial
food-fights. It's tricky to get that
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On 25. januar 2005 11:40 +0100 Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Harald, I'm with you except perhaps for the data protection
issue. Elwyn is right that laws in this area vary widely
and if, for example, a subcontractor is located in the EU
they will be
hi,
I generally agree with these principles with some comments:
in (2) I think that the review request need to be addressed to the
chair of the respective body. I think the language of 2026 can be
adapted as to contents.
in (5), I think the appeals should have the full chain of appeals. I
At 17:42 24/01/2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
There has apparently been no comments on these I thought I'd make a
pass...
Some thoughts:
S1, para 3: s/Such support includes/The support for current work includes/
this works either way for me - current seems to say the next sentences
At 7:54 AM -0500 1/25/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in (2) I think that the review request need to be addressed to the
chair of the respective body. I think the language of 2026 can be
adapted as to contents.
Yes, I agree. That is what I included in my proposed wording (lo
these many moons
Harald suggests
The IAD shall ensure that personal data collected for
legitimate purposes of the IASA are protected appropriately,
and at least satisfactorily according to relevant legislation.
Place it just after paragraph 5 of section 3.1, the one that starts out
talking about
Despite the fact that the number of messages on the list doesn't seem to be
decreasing, I believe we are in fact making progress.
Out of 22 tickets listed as open yesterday, I believe we have agreed text
on most - 3 needed some checking, 3 were not yet processed, and only one
- the appeals
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Hi Brian,
At 11:48 AM +0100 1/25/05, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Exactly. And we need to be sure that the appeals text allows for
review of procedures, including the kind of case study you suggest,
without allowing the appeal procedure to be used for commercial
food-fights.
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Scott Bradner wrote:
Harald asks:
2.5 Effective Date for Commencement of IASA
The procedures in this document shall become operational
after this document has been approved by the process
Inline
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 18:42
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Edits - #819 - Elwyn's editorials
There has apparently been no comments on these I thought
I'd
Brian E Carpenter writes:
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On 25. januar 2005 11:40 +0100 Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Harald, I'm with you except perhaps for the data protection
issue. Elwyn is right that laws in this area vary widely
and if, for example, a
On 25 jan 2005, at 08.33, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
At 7:54 AM -0500 1/25/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in (2) I think that the review request need to be addressed to the
chair of the respective body. I think the language of 2026 can be
adapted as to contents.
Yes, I agree. That is what I
Issue 787 is linked to issue 794
Inside 787 we have several topics in fact. One of them is
Transparency in sect 7
Harald (justified and) suggested to change the current text
Transparency: The IETF community shall have complete visibility into
the financial and legal structure of the ISOC
John == John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, failure to take adequate comments before making a
decision seems like a reasonable justification from my
standpoint for reviewing that decision. Depending on the
consequences of doing so it may even be appropriate to
Brian E Carpenter writes
Scott Bradner wrote:
harald suggets
The IAOC attempts to reach consensus on all decisions.
If the IAOC cannot achieve a consensus decision, then
the IAOC may decide by voting.
looks good to me
Agreed
Brian
wfm
Change applied to editing
On Tuesday, January 25, 2005 18:01:31 +0100 Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Issue 787 is linked to issue 794
Inside 787 we have several topics in fact. One of them is
Transparency in sect 7
Harald (justified and) suggested to change the current text
Transparency: The IETF
Inline
-Original Message-
From: Jeffrey Hutzelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 21:15
To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Issue #787 - Transparency in sect 7
On Tuesday, January 25, 2005 18:01:31 +0100 Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
[EMAIL
I agree with Margaret's general principles with a few comments.
(4) is desirable to me but not critical.
I am ambivalent on (6); I don't think it is particularly problematic
but do not think it is required. I understand others disagree with me
strongly on this point.
The rest of the principles
Checking the debate, it seems interesting to ask about one single
distinction on the alternatives:
Do we want to institutionalize a review or an appeal?
In the sense I'm using it here, which I think isn't too strange:
- Review means that a body looks at a decision/handling, and
tells us why
Comments below.
Thanks, Lynn
At 6:03 PM +0100 1/20/05, Tom Petch wrote:
Inline,
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
snip
IASA accounts should probably be changed to IASA general ledger
accounts - to have a recognizable term from bookkeeping
Margaret,
I agree with your point below but I do feel it is helpful to state
what ISOC's intended implementation is: a Cost Center within ISOC.
This should not override the section (principle) you quote below.
Perhaps we can add language at the beginning of this section to
clarify all this (or
W.r.t. to latest suggested text by Harald:
So we have 3 alternatives:
OLD
Although the IAD is an ISOC employee, he or she works under the
direction of the IAOC. The IAD is selected and hired by a committee
of the IAOC. The members of this committee are appointed by the
IAOC,
Our processes have tended to always have review as the first step in
an appeal. I believe that is important.
Margaret's principle (5) which I agree with is consistent with your
definition of appeal although I'm not sure I would use that word.
___
It was recently pointed out that issues concerning confidentiality of
information may not have been adequately addressed; patent submissions
may also place additional constraints and restrictions on what
individuals and organizations can do with intellectual property. Indeed,
this is but one
This text is now in my edit buffer
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 15:23
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Consensus? #789: Section 5.6 - Financial reserves
Harald suggests:
The
I now have this text:
t
The IAOC is expected to determine what IETF
administrative functions are to be performed, and how or
where they should be performed (e.g., internally to the
IASA or by outside organizations), so as to
Makes sense to me.
Changes applied in my edit buffer as proposed by Harald below.
Bert
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 14:26
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Discussion: #786 Section
TExt change made in my edit buffer
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 15:35
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: re: Minor resolution: #793: Section 7 - transition of funds
Harald suggests
To
Hi Bob -
Since I examined some of the issues you raise in some depth as part of
my consulting engagement, I thought I could provide some useful background
on some of the points you raise.
For those who are interested, I looked at these issues in two reports:
On Tuesday, January 25, 2005 21:32:28 +0100 Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sounds good to me, except why did we drop the last sentence?
If you look at the email archives, then you can see that we concluded
that in this section (which is about ISOC responsibilities) it seems
not
Lynn's suggested text is fine with me.
Margaret
At 4:53 PM -0500 1/25/05, Lynn St.Amour wrote:
Margaret,
I agree with your point below but I do feel it is helpful to state
what ISOC's intended implementation is: a Cost Center within ISOC.
This should not override the section (principle) you
These 2 have been applied to my edit buffer
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 15:46
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Legal review 4: Minor editorial
Editorial Comments from Jorge:
Changed
In addition, key contract material and MOUs shall
also be publicly available, subject to any
reasonable confidentiality obligations
approved by the IAD.
into
In addition, key contract
Brian E Carpenter writes:
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Suggestion: Add to section 3, one paragraph before section 3.1:
The IASA is responsible for undertaking any and all required actions
that involve trademarks on behalf of the IETF.
Works for me
sfm too, and for now I have
I ahve made the change suggested by Harald.
Bert
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 10:23
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Discussion: #822 legal review 3: Legal advice
The discussion
With apologies for having posted disappeared (ISP other
unexpected connectivity challenges), I'd like to try another
cut at what I was getting at, based on the discussion since.
On Friday, I tried a minimal edit on words that had flown
around the list and seemed to have some consensus. Here's
So... not 100% sure I captured the result ciorrectly.
This is what we have in rev 04:
section title=Divisional Accounting
anchor=divisional-accounting
t
Funds managed by IASA shall be accounted for in a
separate set of accounts.
At 8:16 AM +0100 1/17/05, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Thanks for the comments, Lynn!
--On søndag, januar 16, 2005 18:03:35 -0500
Lynn St.Amour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-- In 2.2 principle 8 - note: this is not a critical change, but it may
be helpful to more accurately reference later text
Bert -
I assume from the long to and cc list you are looking for me too affirmations.
I'm 100% fine with what you have and, if any of the other folks think you're
only 95% and propose tweaks, let me say in advance I'm fine with that as well.
Regards,
Carl
So... not 100% sure I captured the
Hi Leslie,
This formulation is still of the form that does not give the IETF
community a direct voice in the review and appeal mechanisms for the
IAOC.
I, personally see not reason why the IAOC is not directly addressable
by the community and does not have a direct obligation to the IETF
--On Tuesday, 25 January, 2005 14:46 +0100 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Despite the fact that the number of messages on the list
doesn't seem to be decreasing, I believe we are in fact making
progress.
...
Harald (and Leslie),
This is very encouraging. But there is a
Avri,
--On tirsdag, januar 25, 2005 23:44:09 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Leslie,
This formulation is still of the form that does not give the IETF
community a direct voice in the review and appeal mechanisms for the IAOC.
I do not understand what you mean by direct voice. Could you explain?
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 3987
Title: Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs)
Author(s): M. Duerst, M. Suignard
Status: Standards Track
Date: January 2005
Mailbox:[EMAIL
50 matches
Mail list logo
