Subject: Re: 1601bis: The Charter of IAB

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 14:06:24 -0600

Rahmat,

"Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" wrote:
> 
> To Whom It May Concern
> 
> Re: Last Call: Charter of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) to BCP
> 
> > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
> > solicits final comments on this action.  Please send any
> > comments to the [email-masked] or [email-masked] mailing lists
> > by February 9, 2000.
> 
> > Files can be obtained via
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-iab-rfc1601bis-02.txt
> 
> General
> 
> 1. Why should the IESG approve the charter? Why not the ISOC?

Because this is an IETF document defining the charter of an IETF committee.

> 2. There is no clear statement about the relationship between
>    ISOC and IAB. Why?

The following seems clear enough to me:

   The IAB acts as a source of advice and guidance to the Board of
   Trustees and Officers of the Internet Society concerning technical,
   architectural, procedural, and (where appropriate) policy matters
   pertaining to the Internet and its enabling technologies. If
   necessary the IAB may convene panels of knowledgeable people, hold
   hearings, and otherwise pursue the investigation of specific
   questions or topics presented to it by the Internet Society.

> 3. There is no clear statement about relationship with RFC-Editor,
>    IESG, IETF-Sec, IANA, and ICANN. Why?

On the contrary, relations with the RFC-Ed, IESG, and IANA are
described explicitly. There is no particular relationship with the
IETF Secretariat and no formal relationship whatever with ICANN,
so on those two there is nothing to describe.
> 
> Accountability
> 
> 4. As the community is not only exclusively the IETF anymore,
>    what does really "on behalf of the Internet Community" mean?

This phrase does not occur in the draft.

>    What measurement will be used? 

If the IETF doesn't like the job we do, they have recourse under BCP 10.

>    Will the IAB publish at least
>    an annual "progress report"? 

That might be a good idea if we had the time, but it is not something
to put in a charter.

> What/Where is the replacement of
>    what IAB previously reported in the IMR?

All the information previously supplied in the IMR is now available
on the IETF and/or RFC Editor web sites.

> 
> 5. How will the IAB implement "own choosing" of BCP-9:
>    "The IAB shall then review the situation and attempt to resolve
>    it in a manner of its OWN CHOOSING."

These words are not in the draft we are discussing.

>    See also BCP-9:
>    6.5  Conflict Resolution and Appeals
>    6.5.1 Working Group Disputes
>    6.5.2 Process Failures
>    6.5.3 Questions of Applicable Procedure
>    See also BCP-11:
>    3.6  Internet Architecture Board
>    3.7  Internet Assigned Numbers Authority

I fail to see the relevance of this list to the document we are discussing.

> 6. What should the IAB/ISOC do, if the IESG signs a treaty without
>    having a Last Call?

I fail to see why this question is relevant to the document we are discussing

> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Enclosed is my suggested framework of 1601bis

I don't see any items in your framework that are both appropriate to
include in the charter and not included in the existing draft.

   Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 14:06:24 -0600

Rahmat,

   Brian

---

From: "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2000 19:45:14 +0800

Hello:

Thank you for you reply and your valuable time. This following 
is "LONG" (as it is now the dragon year :-). You might want
to hit d(delete) now, or adjust your procmail configuration.

> Because this is an IETF document defining the charter of an 

Oh, I see... first of all, I have no problem that the IESG
is the one in charge of giving each BCP a "sequence" number.
However, letting the IESG approve its "appealing body" charter
might be a little bit complicated.

Borrowing Li's term, a BCP is something that is:
     ....................................
     "accepted by the IETF, and by God, 
      this is how we're gonna do things".
     ....................................

In my understanding, therefore, a BCP should be more than
just accepted by the IETF. Furthermore, the first charter 
of IAB was introduced in a different way:

  ............................................................
  Subject: Draft IAB charter as part of ISOC
  From: Lyman Chapin
  Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92

  [...] Before I present the charter to the ISOC board, 
  I would like to hear from any of you who may have comments
  on the draft. Incorporation of the IAB into the ISOC brings 
  the IESG, IETF, and all of the other "pieces" into the ISOC 
  as well, so please read the proposed charter carefully, 
  and feel free to comment either directly to me or to the 
  IAB and/or IETF as a whole.

  [... see also RFC-1358 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1358.txt ]
  .............................................................

And so was RFC-1602 ( http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1602.txt )

  .........................................................  
  Notice
 
  [...] This document is provisional, pending legal review
   and concurrence of the Internet Society Trustees.  [...]
  .........................................................

See also the minutes DRAFT of POISED95 WG, Los Angeles, 
4 & 5 March 1996:

   ..........................................................
   Minutes:  Bob Steen
   Chair:    Erik Huizer

   Overall Document Issues.
   ========================
   All three documents need to be accepted by the ISOC BoT.
   They will be given last call at the IETF level and then sent
   with a letter to the ISOC BoT.

   (... this following is extra ...)
   There was a short discussion on whether or not the Poised96
   should try to find out what is wrong with the process and
   examine the IAB, IETF, IRTF Roles  What's wrong?  What's not?
   The goal being to make a broad recommendation to fix these
   problems.  After discussion, this was dropped as unworkable.
   ...........................................................

So, what is the problem of clarifying who reviews the IAB
charter, and how it is going to be modified? Basically,
the IESG should concentrate with IETF's "core business",
and get rid (=out source) whatever the IESG is not 
interested to do in the first place.

>    pertaining to the Internet and its enabling technologies.

Why? What for? It is about time for the IAB to understand how
important it is -- as an "appeal body", and not as a "super IESG".
The IAB is needed for maintaining the integrity of the IETF,
and to make sure that the IESG does what it supposed to do.
I have no idea (due to the poor documentation) whether the IESG
is really listen to the IAB when approving a new WG.

The ISOC is needed just like a monarchy needs a "king" or "queen"
but nothing else. The ISOC is needed to approve the IAB charter,
to appoint a NomCom chair, providing legal protections, 
perhaps as a supreme appeal body, etc.

Even being an "appeal body" can be delegated to a NOMCOM like
(or jury like) committee. But, the IAB should make sure that
the appeal body proceed as it supposed to do.

> include in the charter and not included in the existing draft.

Still not clear? Basically,  I would like to suggest to put
back point #5 and especially point #6 of RFC 1160
(http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1160.txt)

    ..............................................................
    The IAB performs the following functions:
    1)   Sets Internet Standards,
    2)   Manages the RFC publication process,
    3)   Reviews the operation of the IETF and IRTF,
    4)   Performs strategic planning for the Internet, identifying
         long-range problems and opportunities,
    5)   Acts as an international technical policy liaison and
         representative for the Internet community, and
    6)   Resolves technical issues which cannot be treated within
         the IETF or IRTF frameworks.
    ..............................................................

regards,

-- 
- Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim --  VLSM-TJT --  http://rms46.vlsm.org/ -
- Da da da ich lieb dich nicht du liebst mich nicht aha -- TRIO82 -

---

From: "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2000 19:45:14 +0800

Hello:

 

   Overall Document Issues.
   ========================

regards,

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2000 10:12:17 -0600

Hi Rahmat,

I can read your words, but I really can't understand your concerns. You seem
to be worrying about dragons that I can't see. Happy New Year, anyway.

  Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2000 10:12:17 -0600

Hi Rahmat,

  Brian

---

From: "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 14:40:09 +0800

Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> I can read your words, but I really can't understand your concerns.
> You seem to be worrying about dragons that I can't see. Happy New 
> Year, anyway.

Hm... your reply is exactly my concern! Your answer is just based
on "can not understand" and not based on any document or past
history. Therefore, I would like to see more things in written.
Is this by the way how the board in handling appeals?
Who is the current IANA and RFC-Ed (chair/head/whatever)?

I also believe what Klensin wrote is still valid:

......................................................................

[... 22 Feb 1996 ... skipping voting out of existence, fine lunches 
 and dinners, and irresolvable controversy pronouncements...]

For questions of process, there is really a jury problem, not a
technical or architectural expertise one.  The IAB membership
may have no special competence to make decisions on process
matters and, if they were involved in the initial proposals in
any way, they may be contaminated relative to making fair
choices.  I suggest that, for process questions, the right
appeals body is a jury-like group that is chosen exactly the way
the Nomcomm is chosen -- volunteers from the IETF participant
pool and then at random, with no sitting IAB or IESG (or, I'd
think, ISOC Trustees) members permitted to volunteer.

I don't have an opinion as to whether we pick an appeals panel
for a year just in case we need them or pick them only when a
sufficient process appeal arises.  It is not clear to me that it
makes much difference -- except that, if they were picked on
demand, we might just take the attendance list from the last few
meetings and draw people from it on an "attendance subjects one
to the risk on volunteering" basis.  That has some drawbacks but
some appeal.

For the technical error questions, it is still not clear to me
that IAB is the right appeals body, especially if they were
active in formulating the position under appeal or an alternate
to it.   A randomly-chosen jury might still work, but might well
not have the right technical expertise.  As one possibility, we
could move toward a formalized blue-ribbon review and mediation
panel, with members of that panel being chosen by IESG, the WG
leadership, and the individual or group launching the appeal.
If it was appropriate to populate that panel with IAB members,
that would be fine, but the review itself would not be an IAB
responsibility.   If the panel didn't behave fairly, that
becomes a procedural question, and the appeals board outlined
above takes over.

................................................................

It seems that the only thing that I can do is keeping records
on who's who were on the board (+when), plus who were the nomcom 
who had elected them. Let the Vulcans, Klingons, and 
Ferengis make the final judgements in the next millennium.

tabe,

-- 
- Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim --  VLSM-TJT --  http://rms46.vlsm.org/ -
- Always select ShutDown from the StartMenu - M$Windows after crash

---

From: "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 14:40:09 +0800

tabe,

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 05:46:50 -0500

--On Saturday, 12 February, 2000 14:40 +0800 "Rahmat M. 
Samik-Ibrahim" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> ........
> [... 22 Feb 1996 ... skipping voting out of existence, fine
> lunches  and dinners, and irresolvable controversy
>   pronouncements...]

My, my, do I love being quoted out of context on a comment that 
was made four years ago, and was intended as humorous rather 
than a serious comment on the process.  I don't remember the 
comment or its context, but strongly suspect from the partial 
sentence excerpt that it was _never_ "valid" except as a 
sarcastic and/or cynical remark, made in passing and intended to 
mean the opposite.

Rahmat, this is one of the difficulties with the path you seem 
to want us to go down.  Except when formally hearing an appeal 
and, possibly in a very small number of other cases (I can't 
identify any at the moment, but don't want to get into a 
nit-picking argument with you about whether they exist), the IAB 
isn't a formal deliberative body.  And, even when we face those 
more formal situations, we are not, as we pointed out recently 
in another context,  a court of law and will not try to behave 
like one.  Instead, we operate very informally, as a collection 
of people trying to collectively understand issues and help the 
IETF move forward.   All of those people bring strong technical 
skills and experience to the table, rather than being 
professional or amateur lawyers or the like.  If you don't like 
the composition of the IAB in terms of the individual profiles 
and personalities, that is a Nomcom  issue, not a charter or 
procedural one.

In working informally --with each other and with the IETF 
participant community (especially those who are making technical 
contributions)-- we also tend to be human.  Under stress, some 
of us even become cynical or engage, informally, in what we call 
in the US "black humor".  So, as you must know, do several other 
professional population groups: this shouldn't be any surprise 
or cause for concern.  But that informal process is precisely 
what permits us to work as a team, in spite of different 
backgrounds and perspectives, and quite often come up with 
results that are clearer and better than any of us could have 
produced alone.  Tying us up in procedures, or requirements that 
we expose and document every word spoken or written, would, at a 
minimum, cripple our ability to get anything done.  That would, 
of cousre, prevent our doing harm by preventing our doing 
anything, but I, at least, don't see that as in the best 
interests of the IETF or the Internet generally.

I think those of us who have been following your notes over the 
last few years understand your concerns but generally do not 
agree.  As, I believe (haven't checked), the only member of the 
current or upcoming IAB with significant professional training 
in the social and behavioral sciences, I am probably more 
sympathetic than most to your desire for a clear historical 
record.  But --precisely because I continue to be interested in 
the interactions between process, formal procedures, and 
results-- I don't think it is productive in this case, 
especially to what, IMO, is the extreme to which you want to 
take things.  More specifically, I would personally prefer to 
avoid turning the IETF, or any of the related or subsidiary 
structures, into an experiment in political theory or utopianism 
(mine or anyone else's).

With regard to your substantive comments about appeals and jury 
processes... The reality is that all of the appeals that have 
reached the IAB within my memory have involved significant and 
often complex technical components, typically including 
questions of whether WG, WG Chair, or IESG decisions on a 
particular issue were reasonable in the light of some technical 
argument.   They haven't been exclusively procedural, or 
exclusively technical, but a inseparable mix of the two.    In 
the "outside world", the historical experience with 
randomly-chosen juries in that type of situation has been fairly 
terrible.  That is not surprising: if one doesn't understand the 
issues but is forced to make a decision, one decides on some 
other basis.  It is also well-known that, if the randomly-chosen 
members of the jury can be educated about the issues, then 
results get better: but that is a time-consuming process and can 
easily lead to claims about the biases of the educators who 
must, recursively, be selected and/or monitored by some process 
that reduces or eliminates those concerns.

Now, if we were dealing with exclusively procedural appeals, I 
would agree with you that an independently-selected appeals 
body, one that could deal with conflicting claims about what had 
occurred on an adversarial and evidentary basis, would be a 
better and more convenient idea.  I actually suggested that a 
few years ago, possibly in the document from which you extracted 
the above, because I assumed we would see mostly that type of 
appeal.  But, if I recall, the community rather throughly 
rejected that idea.  And, in retrospect, I'd assume that at 
least part of the reason was that I was wrong: while there would 
still be some attraction to getting appeal work off the IAB's 
agenda (my other motivation at the time), we haven't seen those 
types of appeals.

I could quibble with some of your other suggestions (e.g., 
picking people conditioned on attendance would result in an 
uncomfortably biased (in the statistical sense) group, 
especially if an appeal addressed the way in which a 
mailing-list-only participant was being treated.  But it isn't 
worth it: the general idea itself is fatally flawed by an 
incorrect assumption about the nature of the appeals that arise.

Conversely, blue-ribbon appeals panels for more technical issue 
have some logical appeal, but would, I believe, create a 
different sort of bias, one that involves very slow procedures 
and responses.  And a non-trivial fraction of IETF participants 
seem to have a deep suspicion that people who _really_ want to 
serve on such things should be disqualified as 
non-representative of the community, if not outright insane, 
which is probably not a good basis for trust in such panels.

The system isn't perfect, but options such as the ones you 
suggest were considered and the conclusion was that, on balance, 
the present setup isn't significantly worse than other possible 
choices and better than many of them.  And I think actual 
experience so far, as distinct from theorizing about 
possibilties for what might happen or about ideal processes, has 
largely confirmed the acceptability of those choices.

     john

p.s. The above remarks have not been examined to be sure that no 
word could possibly be misinterpreted by someone inclined to do 
so.  So now I guess I get to spend the next year or four 
worrying about which phrases will be taken out of context and 
used ot demonstrate something I don't believe (either now or "by 
then")  :-(

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 05:46:50 -0500

john

---

From: "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 18:31:13 +0800

John C Klensin wrote:

> than a serious comment on the process.

Sorry, I was not aware that an email to an IETF WG list with 
a subject "The appeals process and the IAB" and starts with 
"... have discussed with a few people..."  was intended as 
humorous.

Anyway, let's agree to disagree:

1. I am strongly opposing the current 1601bis, but who cares
   anyway? There is no way to make an appeal, and therefore,
   I believe it is a WIN-WIN situation: most likely that charter 
   will be approved, and I will save ISOC membership fee.

2. I have no problem with the informality at the WG and IESG 
   level, including sending humorous emails to a list :^).
   However, I believe that the IAB serves as a shim between
   that informality and its formal umbrella organization (ISOC).

3. I believe that the IESG is doing fine at its level except 
   it should stop signing treaties and MoUs with other organizations.
   But, I do not believe that the IESG needs a super-IESG
   (i.e. the current IAB) for technical oversight purpose.
   Even if the IESG needs one, an expert advisory panel
   could sever that purpose.

4. I believe that the IAB should deal with things that the IESG 
   is not interested anyway, including to deal with the formality 
   of the *REAL* community.

5. Case closed.

regrets,

---

From: "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 18:31:13 +0800

5. Case closed.

regrets,