RE: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures

John, you wrote:

> Then recommend to the community that the Trust Agreement be changed.

The Trustees are not talking about changing the terms of the Trust
Agreement, so this should not be necessary.

> I am worried about the IAOC and/or Trustees adopting procedures that
> are inconsistent with the Trust Agreement.

Me too! It is not the intention of the Trustees to adopt procedures that
are inconsistent with the Trust Agreement.  

> if anything is going to be said, it needs to be consistent with the
> Trust Agreement _and_ reflect the desires and intent of the community.

I agree.

Regards,

Ed Juskevicius

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
John C Klensin
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 1:39 PM
To: Marshall Eubanks
Cc: Leslie Daigle; Harald Alvestrand; IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures

--On Wednesday, 09 April, 2008 10:24 -0400 Marshall Eubanks
<tme@multicasttech.com> wrote:

> How, precisely, would the IAOC cease to exist ?

Marshall, this is nearly irrelevant.  The point is that there is
language covering that case in the Trust Agreement and there is language
in the procedures developed by the Trustees, and they are not
consistent.

> If they all resign or die, the IETF (IESG, IAB, ISOC) would appoint 
> more.
> 
> If BCP 101 was changed, the new document would undoubtedly cover the 
> treatment of the Trust by the IAOC replacement, or allow for direct 
> appointments, or whatever. At any rate, that should be worried about 
> then, not now.

Then recommend to the community that the Trust Agreement be changed.  If
the ability to make this sort of change somehow got negotiated away...
well, I guess we live with that, but it is still no reason to have a
procedural document inconsistent with the Trust agreement.
>
> This wording is, in my opinion, purely to account for the case of the 
> IETF ceasing to exist, in which case I think Brian's wording is 
> appropriate.

My imagination is paranoid enough to think of at least one more case,
but I would suggest that the principle remains and that, were the IETF
to abruptly go out of business, the former members of the former IAOC
might not be the best people to act as receivers of the Trust and
controllers of its remaining assets.
Note that, with the way the new IPR documents are drawn, the Trust has
some long-term responsibilities to the Internet community whether the
IETF exists or not.

> (And, of course,
> if there is no IETF, there would presumably also be no IESG, so they 
> could not appoint more.)

The Trust Agreement, IIR, says "IESG or its successor".  Whether the
various arrangements now in place are adequate to designate a successor
to the IESG if they and IETF go out of business,  I don't know.  But I
do know that isn't the problem of the Trust or IAOC (although either
could make a proposal about what to do about it).

> One of the parties of the Trust agreement was worried about this. I am

> not.

I'm not particularly worried about the conditions that would trigger any
of these provisions occurring.  I am worried about the IAOC and/or
Trustees adopting procedures that are
inconsistent with the Trust Agreement.   Given what the Trust
Agreement says, I don't believe the procedures actually need to say a
word on this topic.  Not saying a word would be, I believe, consistent
with your "worried about then, not now"
suggestion.  But, if anything is going to be said, it needs to be
consistent with the Trust Agreement _and_ reflect the desires and intent
of the community.

     john

_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf