Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures

John C Klensin <> Wed, 09 April 2008 17:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D0233A6E01; Wed, 9 Apr 2008 10:38:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 028873A6C27 for <>; Wed, 9 Apr 2008 10:38:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.131
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.131 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.468, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tG5B8zCxVEMF for <>; Wed, 9 Apr 2008 10:38:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3F3F3A6E01 for <>; Wed, 9 Apr 2008 10:38:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (helo=p3.JCK.COM) by with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1JjeG6-000Naf-Ta; Wed, 09 Apr 2008 13:38:55 -0400
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 13:38:53 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To: Marshall Eubanks <>
Subject: Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
Message-ID: <BE553BCE544B8A70231137C9@p3.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <CAB795A3F7B5B1851E831FBB@beethoven.local> <> <E974AC59312981BA5F1A1364@p3.JCK.COM> <> <33EDFDB1A6BB5C5B68362C2C@p3.JCK.COM> <>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: Leslie Daigle <>, 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 Wednesday, 09 April, 2008 10:24 -0400 Marshall Eubanks
<> 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.


IETF mailing list