Re: [Iasa20] Diagrams of current vs. Option 2/3

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Fri, 16 February 2018 22:09 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 362691200F1 for <iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 14:09:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key) header.d=labn.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6AuY8lb1SHiC for <iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 14:09:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gproxy4-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy4-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.23.142]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7764212008A for <iasa20@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 14:09:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cmgw3 (unknown [10.0.90.84]) by gproxy4.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5714175F59 for <iasa20@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 15:09:16 -0700 (MST)
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw3 with id Ba9D1x00B2SSUrH01a9Gpt; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 15:09:16 -0700
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=XM9AcUpE c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=Op4juWPpsa0A:10 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=OQMXtutDAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=_fyuVO9E9UWLY0A9ZXEA:9 a=xeGvDOWpN5807kDk:21 a=d_QgwbLw6cmhhqqz:21 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=o0S68b0hba2e6WAnM25O:22 a=w1C3t2QeGrPiZgrLijVG:22
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version :Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=XLyeW7HlC73KDZ3SgM+38qfcIFniv7qWe8p1hYxc/ug=; b=T/A35uoBZfVKQl+Cc8osEm6A9x wFWCXw2vyrMVicWdA6Hx2hPhvzTDLYHt3j0u9gU58/kxiMIMbghhh4pIQdsgfO6Aq/hmHyQG7+Ijf h9TwNbk/4ZhBghYhdNLlQjG2T;
Received: from pool-100-15-86-101.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([100.15.86.101]:56120 helo=[IPv6:::1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89_1) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1emoBs-002577-Tl; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 15:09:13 -0700
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>, iasa20@ietf.org
References: <CAL02cgSDiUNJWnT28De1UbxjWTigyCztC1hQxb1bErhHrA4fLw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMCdr=FqAy6qxvKtsUq3B182Cyd0A+6GCTbaTaLZ3cp2YA@mail.gmail.com> <2CA2CD55-9367-4282-8ED1-AE6B119D6505@cooperw.in>
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Message-ID: <566e5366-752d-623d-9f07-0a934187393f@labn.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 17:09:10 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2CA2CD55-9367-4282-8ED1-AE6B119D6505@cooperw.in>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box313.bluehost.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - labn.net
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-IP: 100.15.86.101
X-Exim-ID: 1emoBs-002577-Tl
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: pool-100-15-86-101.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([IPv6:::1]) [100.15.86.101]:56120
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 5
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iasa20/UAGdrp9QjwGnNVbhJcPzrfouiQw>
Subject: Re: [Iasa20] Diagrams of current vs. Option 2/3
X-BeenThere: iasa20@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions relating to reorganising the IETF administrative structures in the so called “IASA 2.0” project. <iasa20.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/iasa20>, <mailto:iasa20-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/iasa20/>
List-Post: <mailto:iasa20@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iasa20-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20>, <mailto:iasa20-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 22:09:24 -0000


On 2/16/2018 4:01 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>
>> On Feb 16, 2018, at 10:46 AM, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com 
>> <mailto:ted.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> I note that your diagram includes the IETF Trust, which is not part 
>> of this discussion since it already had a separate legal existence.  
>> I think it would be cleaner to remove it, especially since the 
>> relationship is not that the IAOC administers the IETF Trust, as this 
>> diagram describes it.  The Trustees do; they simply are currently 
>> defined in terms of the trust.   I agree that this would need 
>> adjustment if the IAOC disappeared, but that's really a very separate 
>> question than the core of the IASA 2.0 work.  On a related note, the 
>> IAD also serves as an ex-officio, non-voting member of the IAOC 
>> (that's why the IAD is a Trustee).
>
> Agreeing with everything here, but I just wanted to note that in 
> previous discussions folks have said “what about the Trust?” when 
> contemplating various future scenarios. So we were trying to be 
> responsive to that.
>

Thanks Alissa,
FWIW I think it's worth keeping in the picture - even if kept in gray...

Lou
> Alissa
>
>>
>> Lastly, this is certainly one way to look at what might get created 
>> but it presumes some structures (like an advisory council and the 
>> IETF Admin Org board having some members selected by the board 
>> itself) which have not been in any of the proposals I've seen.  If 
>> the proposals out of the design team plan to include those, I think 
>> having them in drafts before London would be very useful.
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> Ted
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:01 AM, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx 
>> <mailto:rlb@ipv.sx>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hey all,
>>
>>     As we're considering the various options available, I thought I
>>     would play cartoonist again (after contributing [1] earlier) and
>>     share some diagrams of how processes might change if we go for
>>     one of the subsidiary options (II or III in the memo from the
>>     lawyers). Based on a whiteboard that Alissa, Sean, and I sketched
>>     out one afternoon:
>>
>>     https://ipv.sx/iasa2.0/IASA-Strawman.pdf
>>     <https://ipv.sx/iasa2.0/IASA-Strawman.pdf>
>>
>>     Obviously, the details will need to change as a result of the
>>     legal discussion, but I thought it would be useful to illustrate
>>     one possible realization here.
>>
>>     --Richard
>>
>>     [1] https://ipv.sx/iasa2.0/IASA-org-charts.pdf
>>     <https://ipv.sx/iasa2.0/IASA-org-charts.pdf>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     iasa20 mailing list
>>     iasa20@ietf.org <mailto:iasa20@ietf.org>
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
>>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> iasa20 mailing list
>> iasa20@ietf.org <mailto:iasa20@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> iasa20 mailing list
> iasa20@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20