Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Mon, 07 April 2008 20:31 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BED3A3A6CBA; Mon, 7 Apr 2008 13:31:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E1993A6CBD for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Apr 2008 13:31:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.475
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.475 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.124, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Cnp1wDgwVTw7 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Apr 2008 13:31:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8947B3A6AAA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Apr 2008 13:31:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,618,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="5613671"
Received: from ams-dkim-2.cisco.com ([144.254.224.139]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Apr 2008 22:31:17 +0200
Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com (ams-core-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.150]) by ams-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m37KVH9r020479; Mon, 7 Apr 2008 22:31:17 +0200
Received: from xbh-ams-332.emea.cisco.com (xbh-ams-332.cisco.com [144.254.231.87]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m37KVHM3016268; Mon, 7 Apr 2008 20:31:17 GMT
Received: from xfe-ams-332.cisco.com ([144.254.231.73]) by xbh-ams-332.emea.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 7 Apr 2008 22:31:17 +0200
Received: from [10.32.244.219] ([10.32.244.219]) by xfe-ams-332.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 7 Apr 2008 22:31:17 +0200
In-Reply-To: <05216A653F92E3BAE8A4A244@p3.JCK.COM>
References: <47F52D51.4030501@isoc.org> <05216A653F92E3BAE8A4A244@p3.JCK.COM>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753)
X-Gpgmail-State: !signed
Message-Id: <6ED3D491-F319-46BE-ADB5-539BE8E94254@cisco.com>
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 13:31:14 -0700
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Apr 2008 20:31:17.0252 (UTC) FILETIME=[54CE8C40:01C898EE]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=547; t=1207600277; x=1208464277; c=relaxed/simple; s=amsdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20<fred@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20Proposed=20Revisions=20to=20IETF=20Trus t=20Administrative=20Procedures |Sender:=20; bh=7YLmLg8sXfzFzeVvaJnV7ZwQXMn49RiCY1Km4my3ceY=; b=k7FLDWH2XC5MhpqiVqtcuTx3UzoHlpVSFR911S2CcAg4U0Io6QyE0+RCQd aE4yPUVk9LNNePfl2Azml6osuPRPMczKXv8EOFDG3nFyndFtyQvKgh0sgKzI mqE3cVi4L3;
Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-2; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/amsdkim2001 verified; );
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

On Apr 3, 2008, at 1:54 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> Probably the Trust and/or IAOC procedures or charter should be  
> modified so that, in the event of the demise of the IAOC, the Trust  
> falls firmly under direct IETF control (unless the IETF itself  
> ceases to exist).

The concept makes sense to me, but I'd be interested to understand  
how that would be implemented. All decisions of the trust happen in  
discussions on the IETF mailing list, and the consensus of the  
community as determined by J i m F l e m i n g rules?
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf