Subject: Re: AdminRest: an attempt at some principles

From: [email-masked] (scott bradner)
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 10:50:03 -0500 (EST)

Carl asks:
> how about
> <section title="Community Consensus and Grant of Authority">
>   <t>
>     The IETF is a consensus-based group and authority to act on behalf
>     of the community is an act that requires a high degree of consensus
>     and the continued consent of the community
>     After a careful process of deliberation, there is a broad-based
>     community consensus to house the IETF Administrative &amp; Support
>     Activities (IASA) within the Internet Society, which is reflected
>     in this Best Current Practice (BCP) RFC.</t>
>   <t>
>     Termination and change.  Any change to this agreement shall require
>     a similar level of community consensus and deliberation and shall
>     be reflected by a subsequent Best Current Practice (BCP) RFC.
>   </t>  
> </section>

I think that is fine but I don't think it addresses quite the issue
I was talking about - Klensin's "Blowing the bolts" posting is
closer to the issue - a number of people seem to want a 
principle that the AdminRest should structure the IASA and its
accounts (such as a seperate bank account) in such a way to
enable fast bolt blowing - I think that your 2nd pp is closer to
mechanism than principle but I do not know how to formulate the
principle (the logic in Klensin's posting aside).

> > 2/ The IAD, IAOC and the ISOC shall not have any authority over the
> > IETF
> > standards development activities.
> > 
> 
> That's almost true, but you probably need to address that the fact that
> ISOC does play an important role in the standards process, a role
> that is not changed by this document.

note that what I'm trying to get at here is that the IAD, IAOC and the
ISOC can not tell the IETF to adopt or not adopt a technology

I thought about the point Carl raises  and came to the conclusion 
that "no authority of the *standards development activities*" was 
accurate - the ISOC BoT does accept the process documents that have 
been developed using IETF processes but can not change such documents 
on its own, the boT also approves the IAB slate but that did not seem 
to me to be controling the standards development activities - the 
thing that comes closest in theory is that the ISOC BoT can act as 
the final step in an appeal that claims the standards process is flawed 

but in any such case I would expect the BoT (if the appeal were to be
successful) would point out to the IETF what the problem was and
leave it to the IETF to figure out how to fix it not change the 
process by itself

in any case I think that the basic principle is that these groups
have "no authority of the standards development activities" is a clean
one to state - elsewhere in the document the details about
approvals and appeals can be explained

> > 7/ The right to use any intellectual property rights created by any
> > IASA-related or IETF activity may not be withheld by the ISOC from the
> > IETF.
> 
> how about "withheld or limited in any way"?

that is a better thing to say

Scott

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Carl Malamud <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 09:54:25 -0800 (PST)

> principle (the logic in Klensin's posting aside).

FWIW, IMHO, YMMV, I think if the ietf community has selected the
isoc as their program manager for ietf admin&support activities,
you don't need much more than the above and perhaps a few statements
indicating the principles of being able to identify where money goes.
If people want seperate bank accounts, that takes one sentence.

In other words, this is getting way too complicated for a pretty
simple idea: ISOC as program manager, the program management in a
seperate "division," and a degree of autonomy for the managers
and oversight group.

The "termination" clause clause may be mechanism, but it is a pretty 
general mechanism.  I really think that level of detail is much better 
than trying to spell out too many of the corner cases at great length.
If people don't like how things are going in the future, the
"get a new bcp through the process" seems to handle pretty much
any eventuality.  I suppose we could do the "and we get to take our
money with us" prenup, but that money is going to be raised by
ISOC, so claiming it as an ietf dowry being held for future 
marriage proposals is a little bit strange.

Bottom line for me: this doesn't need to be this complicated.
If we want ISOC as our program manager, then let's just do it.
A lot of thought went into that decision and we should be
supporting the efforts by Bert and Rob to figure out a simple way
to state this ... there is way too much armchair editing.  $0.02.

Regards,

Carl