Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Tue, 08 April 2008 21:25 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 61FBF3A6AC2; Tue, 8 Apr 2008 14:25:50 -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 6B5343A6B0A for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Apr 2008 14:25:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.64
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.64 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.959, 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 6AEGdtphrv9N for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Apr 2008 14:25:48 -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 2372C3A69F7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Apr 2008 14:25:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,625,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="5732751"
Received: from ams-dkim-2.cisco.com ([144.254.224.139]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Apr 2008 23:25:59 +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 m38LPxQi015527; Tue, 8 Apr 2008 23:25:59 +0200
Received: from xbh-ams-331.emea.cisco.com (xbh-ams-331.cisco.com [144.254.231.71]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m38LPxms009823; Tue, 8 Apr 2008 21:25:59 GMT
Received: from xfe-ams-331.emea.cisco.com ([144.254.231.72]) by xbh-ams-331.emea.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 8 Apr 2008 23:25:59 +0200
Received: from [10.32.244.219] ([10.32.244.219]) by xfe-ams-331.emea.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 8 Apr 2008 23:25:58 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CAB795A3F7B5B1851E831FBB@beethoven.local>
References: <20080407194507.44B6028C21E@core3.amsl.com> <CAB795A3F7B5B1851E831FBB@beethoven.local>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753)
X-Gpgmail-State: !signed
Message-Id: <951C7CC1-4DC0-4ACF-B86D-F9F6524509DF@cisco.com>
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 14:25:55 -0700
To: Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Apr 2008 21:25:59.0146 (UTC) FILETIME=[236194A0:01C899BF]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1493; t=1207689959; x=1208553959; 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=HSqtc5mxITK5s29rjQsMmDqsPika4PCPn0ctksyiQDA=; b=mHm3jif6xzJd3EVoGCCp9joc0q5/JZKIaxjXvXCE9/7YnOsgE1SEuMLOBg npFrI0IVLu7C0S7vMCbbW1+xqjgYpEYvbQDiyHucxpH0WqIPV8ZzIWMC3jiv s95/ty6MuH;
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 8, 2008, at 1:14 PM, Leslie Daigle wrote:
> 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.

Russ asked IAOC members to contribute. OK, here I am.

It actually is a separate organization. It has separate meetings,  
separate minutes, and a separate membership - all trustees are IAOC  
members, and one certainly hopes that all IAOC members will agree to  
sign the form that makes them trustees, but that is not a requirement  
of IAOC membership. Specifically the chair of the trustees is *not*  
identified as the chair of the IAOC in the current procedures or in  
the trust - rather, meetings are convened by any trustee who happens  
to be present.

Is that a problem? Well, it's not a big one, but it does seem odd.

There are two logical ways to fix this. One is to identify the set of  
trustees with the IAOC - same committee, same chair, same meetings,  
same minutes. The other is to recognize the difference and decide  
that it's OK - the chair of the trustees might be the same as the  
chair of the IAOC but doesn't have to be, but leave the meetings,  
minutes, and committee separate as they are now. We chose the second,  
being the least change, and are suggesting it to the IETF community.
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf