Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures

Leslie Daigle <> Tue, 08 April 2008 20:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 298A33A6E0B; Tue, 8 Apr 2008 13:14:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B4A63A6C8D for <>; Tue, 8 Apr 2008 13:14:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qv6lwPE8XROm for <>; Tue, 8 Apr 2008 13:14:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DAD33A6CBC for <>; Tue, 8 Apr 2008 13:14:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([::ffff:]) (AUTH: PLAIN leslie, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by with esmtp; Tue, 08 Apr 2008 16:14:58 -0400 id 015A0684.47FBD242.00004E2A
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 16:14:55 -0400
From: Leslie Daigle <>
To: Russ Housley <>, IETF Discussion <>
Subject: Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
Message-ID: <CAB795A3F7B5B1851E831FBB@beethoven.local>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: Harald Alvestrand <>
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


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 <> 

> 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.
> Russ
> --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