Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures

[Marshall Eubanks <[e-mail]>]

On Apr 9, 2008, at 8:21 AM, John C Klensin wrote:

>
>
> --On Wednesday, 09 April, 2008 14:00 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Let's expand the quotation from the current, unamended Trust
>> procedures slightly:
>>
>> "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."
>>
>> I agree there's a drafting error - it should say
>>
>> ""If at any time the IAOC ceases to
>> exist, the Trustees then in office shall remain in office
>> SOLELY IN ORDER TO determine the future of
>> the Trust in accordance with the Trust Agreement.""
>>

How, precisely, would the IAOC cease to exist ?

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.

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

One of the parties of the Trust agreement was worried about this. I am  
not.

Regards
Marshall


>> That was certainly the intent.
>
> But that is still inconsistent with the way I (and others) have
> read the Trust Agreement itself.   If that reading is correct
> then, if the IAOC ceases to exist, the then-current batch of
> Trustees, or at least those who are Trustees as the result of
> IETF appointments or positions, all go "poof" in that role.  The
> IESG then appoints three Trustees and _they_, not the prior
> incumbents, get to determine the future of the Trust.
>
> This distinction is important because it means that the people
> doing the "determining of the future" are potentially different
> people and definitely in different roles.  Precisely the one
> thing those lame-duck Trustees should not be doing is
> "determining the future of the Trust".   The language that would
> be consistent with that reading of the Trust Agreement would be
> something more like...
>
> 	"If at any time the IAOC ceases to exist, the Trustees
> 	then in office shall remain in office only until the
> 	IESG can appoint new Trustees in accordance with the
> 	Trust Agreement.  During that period, their sole role
> 	and authority will be to conduct day to day business;
> 	they are prohibited from making any decisions with
> 	long-term or broad implications that cannot be reversed
> 	by their IESG-appointed successors."
>
> If one is going to plan for an unlikely, and potentially
> catastrophic, contingency at all, it is worth getting it right.
> Even independent of what the Trust Agreement says, if the IETF
> decides to get rid of the IAOC, the decisions about what happens
> next to IETF Administration should be firmly and exclusively in
> IETF hands.
>
> Then one needs to worry about what happens if the IETF goes away
> :-(
>
>      john
>
> _______________________________________________
> IETF mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf