Re: [Ianaplan] who has fiduciary responsibility here, and what's the process

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 15/09/2014 15:58, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> On 15/09/2014 09:07, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>> ...
>>> First off, this is ALL about contractual matters - transitioning from
>>> the NTIA-ICANN contractual regime to a regime where that contract no
>>> longer exists.
>> Since that contract did not and does not involve the IETF, I (as an
>> IETF participant) simply do not care.
> 
> Of course it involves the IETF - it's what directs ICANN to work with
> the IETF and provides the contractual context for the MoU.

We disagree. From my personal experience with IANA staff before, during
and after the formation of ICANN and the signing of the various documents,
they continued loyally to do what the IETF requested them to do. There
was never a moment of doubt in anyone's mind that ICANN would work with
the IETF; they didn't need a contract from NTIA to do that.

> I note that the WG charter specifically includes this statement:
> 
> "However, the mechanisms required to
> address the removal of the overarching NTIA contract may require
> additional documentation or agreements. The WG will identify, but
> not create, such required agreements."
> 
> At least some of us are opining that such mechanisms are required.

And some of are disagreeing. But yes, it's quite possible that this
will be the consensus. I'm curious to know what problems they would
be solving (more on this below).

> I go on to note that the WG charter states as a specific goal: "The
> IANAPLAN working group is chartered to produce an IETF consensus
> document that describes the expected interaction between the IETF and
> the operator of IETF protocol parameters registries." 

Sure. I'm not sure that a citation of RFC 6220 won't suffice, but that
is an IAB document, so formally it doesn't represent IETF consensus.

> Which I assume
> will be the IETF response to the ICG RFP (or am I wrong here)?

As I read it, draft-lear-iana-icg-response is a draft of the
IETF response, and it does cite 6220.

> Since the RFP specifically asks for a section on "Accountability and
> Oversight" to describe current mechanisms, and a section on "Proposed
> Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability Arrangements" - if this WG
> is not going to produce those sections, who is and by what process?

Those are drafted in draft-lear-iana-icg-response already.

>>> Second, at least several people people here have opined that 'on matter
>>> x' the IETF trust would have to weigh in,' or words to that efffect (I
>>> guess I could go back and find exact messages and quotes, if it
>>> matters).
>> Yes, once the IETF has reached consensus about what it wants, the IETF
>> Trust may have to take some action as a result of that consensus.
>> As a former Trustee, I can assure you that the Trustees would not be
>> Trustee for very long if they took some action against the IETF's
>> consensus.
>>
>>> Others have talked about review by council.
>> I have stated that we always get review by our counsel when we are
>> about to sign something. We also do that when we are about to
>> "speak" on a matter that clearly might have legal implications.
>> That's been SOP as long as my IETF memory extends (and I believe
>> we've only had two different lawyers that whole time, so there is
>> considerable institutional knowledge behind the legal advice we
>> receive).
>>
>> So if the output from this WG needs legal review before approval, it
>> will get that review.
>>
>>> And since when is "fiduciary" a big word when it comes to contractual
>>> matters regarding management of global infrastructure?
>> I've been on several boards that had fiduciary duty. IETF working groups,
>> the IAB, IESG and IAOC don't. The IETF Trust does have fiduciary duty
>> *to the
>> IETF*. The ISOC Board naturally has fiduciary duty.
>>
>> But I don't see why this WG should worry its head about that.
>>
>>   
> See above, and I note that the charter goes on to say:
> 
> "Fully documenting the interaction between the IETF and the operator of
> IETF protocol parameters registries may require detailed terms
> ofagreements or other details of procedures that are normally delegated
> to and handled by the IAB or IAOC. The working group will not attempt to
> produce or discuss documentation for these details, but will request the
> IAB or IAOC to provide them separately. The WG shall seek the expertise
> of the IAB IANA Evolution Program to formulate its output. It is
> expected that members of the IAB IANA
> Evolution Program will actively participate in the WG."
> 
> And ask the question:  how is this interaction with the IAB and/or IAOC
> and/or the IAB IANA Evolution Program, and is there a model for how
> these various activities come together to formulate an IETF response to
> the ICG RFP?

I assume that any such discussions will take place openly in this WG,
if there is consensus that any additional agreements are required,
which would require specific problems to be understood first. John
Curran's recent message is helpful in this regard.

    Brian

> I go on to note that the WG charter states as a specific goal: "The
> IANAPLAN working group is chartered to produce an IETF consensus
> document that describes the expected interaction between the IETF and
> the operator of IETF protocol parameters registries." Which I assume
> will be the IETF response to the ICG RFP (or am I wrong here)?
> 
> Miles Fidelman
> Proposed  Post
> -­‐
> 
> Proposed  Post
> -­‐
> 
>