Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures

Russ Housley <> Tue, 08 April 2008 20:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3D7228C41D; Tue, 8 Apr 2008 13:54:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4AD63A6E58 for <>; Tue, 8 Apr 2008 13:54:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.286
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.286 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.313, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Thz7NoMCu8Eg for <>; Tue, 8 Apr 2008 13:54:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id 66E973A6C2D for <>; Tue, 8 Apr 2008 13:54:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 4517 invoked by uid 0); 8 Apr 2008 20:54:15 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ( by with SMTP; 8 Apr 2008 20:54:15 -0000
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 16:34:43 -0400
To: Leslie Daigle <>
From: Russ Housley <>
Subject: Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
In-Reply-To: <CAB795A3F7B5B1851E831FBB@beethoven.local>
References: <> <CAB795A3F7B5B1851E831FBB@beethoven.local>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I hope that other IAOC members will share their thoughts too.  Here are mine.

Right now, the IETF Trust is faced with more work than usual.  The 
IPR WG has placed a significant task on the IETF Trust.  Yet, all of 
the usual IAOC activities need to go forward on the usual 
schedule.  The reason that I support this action it to ensure all of 
these tasks stay on track.  We've already seen the need for an extra 
teleconference in April to make that happen, and I'm sure there will 
me more as the license text begins to be drafted.

As others have already said, separate chairs seems like the right 
thing to the people serving on the IAOC right now.  That may not be 
the desire in a year.  I do not see this flexibility as a problem or 
a slippery slope.


At 04:14 PM 4/8/2008, Leslie Daigle wrote:

>The IETF Trust was set up as an instrument -- a naturally limited scope.
>The specific task you identify below ("paying attention to items") 
>could reasonably be addressed as Harald suggested.
>Giving the Trust a chair is at least a step towards acknowledging it 
>as a separate organization (beyond instrument), and one could then 
>examine whether the IAOC members are, in fact, the right people to 
>populate it (for example).  It certainly opens the doors to mission creep.
>My point, which I think is in line with something John Klensin said 
>earlier, is that even though the current IAOC _intends_ this as a 
>simple administrative change, the fact is it's a structural change 
>that is open to be taken many places by future IAOCs and IETF 
>communities, also of good intent.  Given that, it would be nice to 
>understand 1/ that the IAOC has considered this, and 2/ why other 
>solutions are not considered viable.
>P.S.:  Also -- good luck with ever having a "small" meeting -- with 
>4 Chairs in the room, you'll be looking for end-tables pretty soon ;-)
>--On April 7, 2008 3:45:16 PM -0400 Russ Housley <> wrote:
>>The IAOC and the IETF Trust have different focus.  The idea behind
>>the separate chair is to make sure that someone is paying attention
>>to the items that need to be handled by each body in a timely
>>manner.  It is simply a mechanism to help ensure that noting is
>>falling between the cracks.
>>--On April 4, 2008 11:50:23 AM +0200 Harald Alvestrand
>><> wrote:
>>  > After considering the comments so far, I think I disagree with having a
>>  > separate Trust chair.
>>  >
>>  > The idea behind making the IAOC be the Trustees was, among other
>>things,  > to make sure that we didn't create yet another nexus of
>>control in the  > labyrinth of committees; I understood the legal
>>existence of the  > Trustees as something different (in name) from the
>>IAOC to be strictly  > something we did for legal purposes
>>  >
>>  > If the IAOC chair is overburdened by having to manage the IAOC in two
>>  > different contexts, get him (or her) a secretary.
>>  >
>>  > I agree with John's comment that leaving the current trustees in charge
>>  > on dissolution of the IAOC is inappropriate; for one thing, that also
>>  > removes all the recall mechanisms.
>>  > Figure out something else to do in this case.
>>  >
>>  >                            Harald
>>IETF mailing list

IETF mailing list