RE: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures

John C Klensin <> Wed, 09 April 2008 00:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5713C28C1FE; Tue, 8 Apr 2008 17:55:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B3FF28C1FE for <>; Tue, 8 Apr 2008 17:55:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.079
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.079 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.520, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XA-iXDE30LXL for <>; Tue, 8 Apr 2008 17:55:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C34528C34C for <>; Tue, 8 Apr 2008 17:55:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (helo=p3.JCK.COM) by with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1JjObJ-0007IO-7q; Tue, 08 Apr 2008 20:55:45 -0400
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 20:55:43 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To: Ed Juskevicius <>, Leslie Daigle <>
Subject: RE: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
Message-ID: <E974AC59312981BA5F1A1364@p3.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <CAB795A3F7B5B1851E831FBB@beethoven.local> <>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: Harald Alvestrand <>, IETF Discussion <>
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

--On Tuesday, 08 April, 2008 16:30 -0400 Ed Juskevicius
<> wrote:

> The above being said, it is quite clear from the excellent
> comments posted by several people on this topic that the
> Trustees have more work to do before the job of revising the
> text on the Administrative Procedures document is done.  For
> example,  John Klensin commented on some of the text in
> paragraph 12 that says "If at any time the IAOC ceases to
> exist, the Trustees then in office shall remain in office
> ...".  That text is not new nor a proposed change to any
> existing Trust procedure.  Those words are original text from
> December 2005.  I am happy John took note of them in this
> round of discussions, as I don't think they exactly express
> what the Trustees intended for this clause to say.


Both the IAOC and then the Trust were conceived and defined on
the assumption that they were to isolate administrative
functions and thereby relieve not only the IESG and IAB but the
community from having to monitor them in detail.  Speaking only
for myself, I've been following that assumption, trusting you
folks to do what needs to be done and to do so within the
parameters and procedures laid out in the defining documents.
While I'm certain there was no malice involved, I find it deeply
troubling that a note that was supposed to be about something
else turned up "original text" in a procedures document that is
inconsistent with one of those defining documents, the Trust
Agreement.  I hope it doesn't add significantly to the workload,
but I hope the IAOC will its practices for verifying consistency
between its procedures and actions (and those of the Trust) and
those defining documents.


IETF mailing list