Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures

John C Klensin <> Mon, 07 April 2008 21:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B99313A6E9B; Mon, 7 Apr 2008 14:28:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B71183A6EC5 for <>; Mon, 7 Apr 2008 14:28:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.059
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.059 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.540, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YXdu52urKqsQ for <>; Mon, 7 Apr 2008 14:28:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9F623A6EBF for <>; Mon, 7 Apr 2008 14:28:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (helo=p3.JCK.COM) by with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1JiytL-000IoY-57; Mon, 07 Apr 2008 17:28:39 -0400
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 17:28:37 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To: Ray Pelletier <>
Subject: Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
Message-ID: <C0C2798008B31CC8641EF83F@p3.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <05216A653F92E3BAE8A4A244@p3.JCK.COM> <> <>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: Fred Baker <>, 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 Monday, 07 April, 2008 16:55 -0400 Ray Pelletier
<> wrote:

> Fred Baker wrote:
>> On Apr 3, 2008, at 1:54 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>>> Probably the Trust and/or IAOC procedures or charter should
>>> be   modified so that, in the event of the demise of the
>>> IAOC, the Trust   falls firmly under direct IETF control
>>> (unless the IETF itself   ceases to exist).
>> The concept makes sense to me, but I'd be interested to
>> understand   how that would be implemented. All decisions of
>> the trust happen in   discussions on the IETF mailing list,
>> and the consensus of the   community as determined by J i m F
>> l e m i n g rules?
> As Jorge pointed out:
> This is covered by Section 6.1(c) of the Trust Agreement.  If
> there are ever fewer than 3 Trustees, the IESG will appoint new
> Trustees.  The existing Trustees do NOT become "permanent
> appointments"
> if the IAOC is dissolved.  Rather, the IESG would appoint 3
> Trustees
> until the IAOC or some successor is constituted.

But this is inconsistent with the text that you circulated,
which said, in part,...

	"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

A common-sense reading of that statement says that, if the IAOC
disappears, all Trustees stay in office and make decisions about
the trust.   Jorge's comment and the Trust agreement seem to say
that, if the IAOC ceases to exist, the Trustees (with the
possible exception of the ISOC two) cease to be Trustees and it
is then the responsibility of the IESG to appoint new Trustees
who would "determine the future of the Trust".

All I'm asking about this is what others have asked -- that the
text you propose (and any related administrative procedures that
the Trustees have agreed on) be brought into line with the clear
intent of the Trust and IAOC agreements.


IETF mailing list