Subject: AdminRest: Outstanding items - suggested resolutions

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 14:54:03 +0100

In the BCP document version -02, released today, there is a list of 
outstanding issues.

(in advance of the I-D publication, it, and the diff files, are available 
from http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/adminrest/)

I believe that most if not all of these are issues for which there is rough 
consensus (or at least a feeling of "good enough"). I'll suggest some 
resolutions below; if people have serious objections to these, I think we 
should try for another rev before we send out the formal Last Call; if 
people think that the text as currently written is "good enough", we can 
follow the plan-as-of-last-week and send out the Last Call on Wednesday.

   o  Are designated donations specified appropriately?  In particular,
      does requiring that donations not be "unduly restricted" address
      previously stated concerns?  This is what the current text says.
      It is not yet clear whether the current text is acceptable to
      ISOC.  We may need to check this with ISOC's accountants first.

I believe it is acceptable to the IETF; I don't speak for ISOC.

   o  It's not yet clear whether we have too much about the IAD task.
      Should that task be specified elsewhere, initially by the
      Transition Team, later by IAOC or some committee?  We need people
      to speak up on this.  Is the current text OK?

I believe the detail specified is appropriate for the BCP; the Transition 
Team is trying to describe the role in more detail as we speak.

   o  Would we want the IAOC to sign off on the yearly (or more
      frequent) reports in some formal sense within a reasonable amount
      of time?  This might protect the IAD from some form of open-ended
      lingering responsibility for previous years.  It might also
      protect against having somebody, five years from now, state "this
      is wrong and oh by the way this was already wrong N years ago."

I believe this is implied by the "review" clause in section 3.2; it would 
be strange to have the IAOC review the reports and then neither approve 
them nor give feedback. I think no more text is needed.

   o  How should we deal with conflicts between the IAD, the IAOC and
      ISOC?  This is complicated by the fact that ISOC officially
      employs the IAD while a small committee hires and fires and
      evaluates the IAD.  No new discussion or text has come up since
      draft version 01.

I believe the text in the document adequately specifies what each party is 
responsible for, and if they keep within those spheres of responsibility, 
the risk of conflict is minimized. No new text needed.

   o  How should we deal with disagreements between the ISOC Board of
      Trustees and the IAOC regarding business decisions, spending,
      hiring, etc?

Same thought as above. (I'm a bit nervous about this - we might want to 
work out arrangements later - but this may be something that we can do 
without embedding it in the core BCP)

   o  When do we do a check with accountants and legal advisors?  Can
      that be done during IETF Last Call, or must that happen first?

I believe we can do this during Last Call - once it is clear what the IETF 
wants, it is easier to get the lawyers and accountants to make sure the 
language specifies that accordingly.

   o  The text on an appeal against the IAOC (Section 3.4 is pretty
      fresh, and some seem to want to narrow down what can be appealed.
      Not clear that we have consensus yet.

Please - if someone does not want this - speak up!

              Harald

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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 10:08:12 +0100

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
...
> I believe it is acceptable to the IETF; I don't speak for ISOC.

Agreed

> I believe the detail specified is appropriate for the BCP; the 
> Transition Team is trying to describe the role in more detail as we speak.

Agreed

> I believe this is implied by the "review" clause in section 3.2; it 
> would be strange to have the IAOC review the reports and then neither 
> approve them nor give feedback. I think no more text is needed.

Agreed. In any case the ISOC Board has a duty to approve the audited
accounts, and that is the formal sign-off.

> I believe the text in the document adequately specifies what each party 
> is responsible for, and if they keep within those spheres of 
> responsibility, the risk of conflict is minimized. No new text needed.

Agreed

> without embedding it in the core BCP)

Agreed. If we get such a conflict, we will have to feel our way.

> I believe we can do this during Last Call - once it is clear what the 
> IETF wants, it is easier to get the lawyers and accountants to make sure 
> the language specifies that accordingly.

It's always iterative. It is important that if the text is changed during
Last Call on legal advice, that this is explained carefully to the IETF.

> Please - if someone does not want this - speak up!

I still find the text a bit broad in scope, but it doesn't prevent
summary dismissal of frivolous complaints, so I can live with it.

   Brian