RE: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures

"Ed Juskevicius" <edj@nortel.com> Tue, 08 April 2008 20:30 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17AEF3A6B88; Tue, 8 Apr 2008 13:30:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64F6C3A6B88 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Apr 2008 13:30:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.076, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tTiF+mSjHLPF for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Apr 2008 13:30:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zcars04f.nortel.com (zcars04f.nortel.com [47.129.242.57]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEA1228C39F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Apr 2008 13:29:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com (zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com [47.129.230.99]) by zcars04f.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id m38KUBw04110; Tue, 8 Apr 2008 20:30:11 GMT
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: RE: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 16:30:09 -0400
Message-ID: <0BDFFF51DC89434FA33F8B37FCE363D511F94E2B@zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAB795A3F7B5B1851E831FBB@beethoven.local>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
Thread-Index: AciZtVXBpKYJQGvfS5OioH4CC1qxNQAAHDMQ
References: <20080407194507.44B6028C21E@core3.amsl.com> <CAB795A3F7B5B1851E831FBB@beethoven.local>
From: "Ed Juskevicius" <edj@nortel.com>
To: "Leslie Daigle" <leslie@thinkingcat.com>
Cc: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.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://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

Leslie wrote:

> Giving the Trust a chair is at least a step towards acknowledging
> it as a separate organization ...

I suppose you could interpret things this way, but that is not my view.
Since its creation back in December 2005, all meetings of IETF Trustees
have been convened and chaired by the IAOC Chair.  As such, I think we
have always had execute an administrative role of chairing IETF Trust
meetings, and we've generally referred to that person as the Trust Chair
in minutes and on the IETF Trust website.

The recent posting of some new words for the Trust Administrative
Procedures was an attempt to bring that document up to date, to reflect
a desire amongst the current IAOC to load share the running of IAOC
meetings and IETF Trust meetings by having two different people convene
those meetings, and drive progress.  That's it.  Our intent is
absolutely not to encourage mission creep.

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.

Best Regards,

Ed Juskevicius

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Leslie Daigle
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 4:15 PM
To: Russ Housley; IETF Discussion
Cc: Harald Alvestrand
Subject: Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures



Russ,

The IETF Trust was set up as an instrument -- a naturally limited scope.

The specific task you identify below ("paying attention to items") could

reasonably be addressed as Harald suggested.

Giving the Trust a chair is at least a step towards acknowledging it as
a 
separate organization (beyond instrument), and one could then examine 
whether the IAOC members are, in fact, the right people to populate it
(for 
example).  It certainly opens the doors to mission creep.

My point, which I think is in line with something John Klensin said 
earlier, is that even though the current IAOC _intends_ this as a simple

administrative change, the fact is it's a structural change that is open
to 
be taken many places by future IAOCs and IETF communities, also of good 
intent.  Given that, it would be nice to understand 1/ that the IAOC has

considered this, and 2/ why other solutions are not considered viable.

Leslie.
P.S.:  Also -- good luck with ever having a "small" meeting -- with 4 
Chairs in the room, you'll be looking for end-tables pretty soon ;-)


--On April 7, 2008 3:45:16 PM -0400 Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> 
wrote:

> The IAOC and the IETF Trust have different focus.  The idea behind
> the separate chair is to make sure that someone is paying attention
> to the items that need to be handled by each body in a timely
> manner.  It is simply a mechanism to help ensure that noting is
> falling between the cracks.
>
> Russ
>
> --On April 4, 2008 11:50:23 AM +0200 Harald Alvestrand
> <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
>
>  > After considering the comments so far, I think I disagree with
having a
>  > separate Trust chair.
>  >
>  > The idea behind making the IAOC be the Trustees was, among other
> things,  > to make sure that we didn't create yet another nexus of
> control in the  > labyrinth of committees; I understood the legal
> existence of the  > Trustees as something different (in name) from the
> IAOC to be strictly  > something we did for legal purposes
>  >
>  > If the IAOC chair is overburdened by having to manage the IAOC in
two
>  > different contexts, get him (or her) a secretary.
>  >
>  > I agree with John's comment that leaving the current trustees in
charge
>  > on dissolution of the IAOC is inappropriate; for one thing, that
also
>  > removes all the recall mechanisms.
>  > Figure out something else to do in this case.
>  >
>  >                            Harald
>
> _______________________________________________
> IETF mailing list
> IETF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf




_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf