Re: Options for IETF administrative restructuring

Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com> Thu, 02 September 2004 10:19 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA18663; Thu, 2 Sep 2004 06:19:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C2oiz-0004o8-GR; Thu, 02 Sep 2004 06:21:52 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C2oaR-0000WM-0B; Thu, 02 Sep 2004 06:12:59 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C2oQ1-0002jT-W5 for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Sep 2004 06:02:14 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA17761 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Sep 2004 06:02:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mtagate3.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.152]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C2oSN-0003Lq-Sp for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Sep 2004 06:04:41 -0400
Received: from d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.49]) by mtagate3.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i82A1cnO138058; Thu, 2 Sep 2004 10:01:38 GMT
Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id i82A1bpg107022; Thu, 2 Sep 2004 12:01:37 +0200
Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-145-225-17.de.ibm.com [9.145.225.17]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA60172; Thu, 2 Sep 2004 12:01:36 +0200
Message-ID: <4136EF7F.6020600@zurich.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 12:01:35 +0200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
Organization: IBM
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113
X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
References: <F74255F42647ECBAAC5E9C87@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126>
In-Reply-To: <F74255F42647ECBAAC5E9C87@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 4adaf050708fb13be3316a9eee889caa
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>, Christian de Larrinaga <cdel@firsthand.net>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Options for IETF administrative restructuring
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.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://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8b431ad66d60be2d47c7bfeb879db82c
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> Christian,
...
>> 3/ Do we have an analysis of the policy implications in bringing
>> responsibility for the administration of Internet Standards negotiation
>> into the same body that is responsible for their oversight (via
>> appointment of IAB and Trustee appeal role)?
> 
> 
> That's what the discussion in section 4.2.3 (Scenario B) is intended to 
> cover. See also the comment in section 4.5 (Scenario D).
> So there has been thought applied to this topic. I don't know whether 
> you consider that an "analysis" or not - this is one topic where I would 
> like to get feedback from the community.
> 
>                     Harald

I think Christian is actually raising a point that *isn't* covered explicitly
in 4.2.3 and that applies equally to scenarios A and B. By making IETF
administration a specific function of ISOC, would we introduce any
*new* potential conflict of interest for ISOC trustees in their roles
as the confirming body for the IAB slate (RFC 3777) and as the final step
in the appeals process (section 6.5.3 of RFC 2026)?

I don't see why. ISOC trustees have a fiduciary duty to ISOC, but given
how narrowly their two IETF roles are drawn, I can't see where there is any
significant new potential for conflict because of the administration
being on the ISOC budget.

Christian also implies the converse question: would scenarios C & D
reduce a hypothetical existing conflict of interest for the ISOC
trusteees? Again, I don't see why. Firstly, I don't think there is
an existing conflict of interest. Secondly, changing the IETF from
an unincorporated association to an incorporated entity really
cannot affect the ISOC trustees' fiduciary duty to ISOC, so any
hypothetical conflict would not be changed.

So I think this issue is neutral with respect to the choice
between (A or B) versus (C or D).

The usual "I am not a lawyer" disclaimers apply.

    Brian




_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf