Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures

Ray Pelletier <> Mon, 07 April 2008 21:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D0B43A6E5D; Mon, 7 Apr 2008 14:56:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4718E3A6785 for <>; Mon, 7 Apr 2008 14:56:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.391
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.391 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.207, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YTHT1cnmNg8J for <>; Mon, 7 Apr 2008 14:56:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E63273A6A58 for <>; Mon, 7 Apr 2008 14:56:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id E43EE1B4AAD; Mon, 7 Apr 2008 17:56:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by (Authenticated sender: with ESMTP id 7FD351B4A75; Mon, 7 Apr 2008 17:56:15 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 17:56:07 -0400
From: Ray Pelletier <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, zh, zh-cn, zh-hk, zh-sg, zh-tw, ja
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John C Klensin <>
Subject: Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
References: <> <05216A653F92E3BAE8A4A244@p3.JCK.COM> <> <> <C0C2798008B31CC8641EF83F@p3.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <C0C2798008B31CC8641EF83F@p3.JCK.COM>
Cc: Fred Baker <>, IETF Discussion <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0341506606=="

John C Klensin wrote:

>--On Monday, 07 April, 2008 16:55 -0400 Ray Pelletier
><> wrote:
>>Fred Baker wrote:
>>>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?
>>As Jorge pointed out:
>>This is covered by Section 6.1(c) of the Trust Agreement.  If
>>there are ever fewer than 3 Trustees, the IESG will appoint new
>>Trustees.  The existing Trustees do NOT become "permanent
>>if the IAOC is dissolved.  Rather, the IESG would appoint 3
>>until the IAOC or some successor is constituted.
>But this is inconsistent with the text that you circulated,
>which said, in part,...
>	"If at any time the IAOC ceases to exist, the Trustees
>	then in office shall remain in office and determine the
>	future of the Trust in accordance with the Trust
>	Agreement."
>A common-sense reading of that statement says that, if the IAOC
>disappears, all Trustees stay in office and make decisions about
>the trust.   Jorge's comment and the Trust agreement seem to say
>that, if the IAOC ceases to exist, the Trustees (with the
>possible exception of the ISOC two) cease to be Trustees and it
>is then the responsibility of the IESG to appoint new Trustees
>who would "determine the future of the Trust".
>All I'm asking about this is what others have asked -- that the
>text you propose (and any related administrative procedures that
>the Trustees have agreed on) be brought into line with the clear
>intent of the Trust and IAOC agreements.
And that will be done,

>     john
IETF mailing list