Subject: Transparency/Openness of the IAOC

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 09:01:24 -0500

Hi All,

In reviewing the IASA BCP draft, I noticed that there are no specific 
requirements regarding the level of transparency or openness expected 
from the IAOC.  IMO, we should be careful to start this activity with 
a well-established understanding regarding the level of transparency 
and openness that we expect.

Do we expect the IAOC to keep minutes of their meetings and post them 
publicly (unless there is a specific reason not to post a certain 
section)?  Specific reasons might include:  personnel issue and/or 
sensitive negotiation-position-related information.

Do we expect the IAOC mailing list archives to be publicly available?

Should the IAOC maintain a web site that lists its members and their 
e-mail addresses?

Should the same web site also include a record of all written/legal 
correspondence received by or sent by the IAOC (with sections removed 
if absolutely necessary for confidentiality)?

Should all of the official IAOC decisions be announced publicly? 
And/or do we expect a regular (monthly?) report on IAOC activities?

If we think that it is reasonable to require any of these things, 
which ones should apply to the IASA TT that we just formed?

Margaret

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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 15:53:38 +0100

Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> from the IAOC.  IMO, we should be careful to start this activity with a 
> well-established understanding regarding the level of transparency and 
> openness that we expect.
> 

yes

> Do we expect the IAOC mailing list archives to be publicly available?

no, that would prevent any email on sensitive contractual or personnel
issues

> Should the IAOC maintain a web site that lists its members and their 

on ietf.org

> correspondence received by or sent by the IAOC (with sections removed if 
> absolutely necessary for confidentiality)?

I think that is an onerous requirement

> Should all of the official IAOC decisions be announced publicly?

yes, ietf-announce

> And/or 
> do we expect a regular (monthly?) report on IAOC activities?

I'd say the mandatory frequency should be per IETF meeting

> 
> If we think that it is reasonable to require any of these things, which 
> ones should apply to the IASA TT that we just formed?

exactly the same ones

IMHO
    Brian

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 11:44:01 -0500

To respond to my own questions (not al lo fmy answers are 'yes'):

>Do we expect the IAOC to keep minutes of their meetings and post 
>them publicly (unless there is a specific reason not to post a 
>certain section)?  Specific reasons might include:  personnel issue 
>and/or sensitive negotiation-position-related information.

Yes.

>Do we expect the IAOC mailing list archives to be publicly available?

No, I don't think that this is necessary, as the IAOC may discuss 
personnel issues and/or sensitive negotiations rather frequently and 
forcing the archive to be open would just force the creation of 
another list with a closed archive.

>Should the IAOC maintain a web site that lists its members and their 

Yes.  And, I agree with Brian that it should be within the www.ietf.org tree.

>correspondence received by or sent by the IAOC (with sections 
>removed if absolutely necessary for confidentiality)?

Actually, I think that the IAOC should post all correspondence, and I 
don't think that this is an onerous requirement.  It is not likely 
that there will be all that much non-electronic communication, such 
communication is typically important (sent to meet legal requirements 
for registered mail, etc.), and I think that the IETF should be able 
to see it.  This group will have a full-time employee and access to 
the IETF's secretariat services, so I think that this would be less 
onerous than our current IPR policies and/or our plans for liaison 
statements.

>And/or do we expect a regular (monthly?) report on IAOC activities?

I think that a regular update would be fine although I'd prefer it to 
be more frequent than three times a year.

>which ones should apply to the IASA TT that we just formed?

I think that the IASA TT should have the same level of openness and 
transparency as the eventual IAOC.

Margaret

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 12:21:01 -0500 (EST)

> Actually, I think that the IAOC should post all correspondence

that would contract negotiations fun

Scott

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 12:28:41 -0500

Most contract negotiations that I've been involved in have not 
involved the exchange of snail mail or faxes until after the terms 
are complete and the signatures are being exchanged.

Margaret

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 12:36:28 -0500 (EST)

> are complete and the signatures are being exchanged.

1/ I took "all correspondence" to mean "all correspondence"
2/ I've been in negotiations that involved quite a bit of
   back and forth in finalizing the details (including faxes
   or paper letter as well as email)

Scott

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 13:00:43 -0500

Hi Scott,

>1/ I took "all correspondence" to mean "all correspondence"

But, when I said "all correspondence", I didn't mean _all_ 
correspondence...  :-)

Okay, so this obviously needs to be cleaned up a bit.

What I'm after is that I think the IETF community should be able to 
see the actual contracts that we make with our service organizations 
and partners (maybe with some financial details omitted if 
necessary).  I also think that we should be able to see any official 
addenda to the contracts.  And, that we should be able to see 
registered correspondence that is received from anyone who expresses 
a grievance against us an/or threatens legal action, along with any 
response that the IETF sends to those things.

For instance, we were sent a budget that included a proposed RFC 
Editor cost of ~$800,000.  This cost is based on a Statement of Work 
(SOW) that was negotiated between the IAB and the RFC Editor.  Do we 
(the IETF community) have access to that SOW?  (I don't actually know 
the answer to this question, but I couldn't find it on a quick 
perusal of the IAB and RFC Editor web pages).  Personally, I think 
that we should have access to that SOW and other similar documents.

Does that make sense?

Margaret

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 14:36:43 -0500

> sensitive negotiation-position-related information.

Seems reasonable -- as does, eg, the IAB today.

> Do we expect the IAOC mailing list archives to be publicly available?

As you've noted later -- doesn't seem entirely reasonable or needful.

> Should the IAOC maintain a web site that lists its members and their 

Agree with the ietf.org suggestion.

> absolutely necessary for confidentiality)?

Firstly, do you really mean IAOC?  Or IAD?  Or IASA as a whole?  I have
a hard time imagining that the IAOC is going to get a lot of formal
correspondance.

Irrespective of that -- I believe the key requirement is that the
material needs to be maintained and accessible to successive generations
of IAD/IAOC in support of the IASA function.

It's not at all clear to me what problem would be solved by requiring
all correspondance to be publicly archived, though, beyond what
we already have in the document:

[From the current version of the doc:]
> Transparency: The IETF community shall have complete visibility into
> the financial
 > and legal structure of the ISOC standards activity. In particular, a
 > detailed budget for the entire standards activity, quarterly financial
 > reports, and audited annual financial reports shall all be available to
 > the IETF community. In addition, key contract material and MOUs shall
 > also be publicly available. The IAD and IAOC are responsible for
 > providing regular overviews of the state of the IASA to the IETF
 > community.

> 
> Should all of the official IAOC decisions be announced publicly? And/or 

What are official IAOC decisions?  (As opposed to unofficial ones?).
Before we dive down that rathole, perhaps what is really needed here
is the statement that decisions should be minuted, and the minutes
should be published regularly.

> ones should apply to the IASA TT that we just formed?

Yes.  THough I have to admit we've been struggling with the mechanics
of getting good notes taken from any discussions.

Leslie.

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality:
      Yours to discover."
                                 -- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 11:15:59 +0100

--On onsdag, desember 08, 2004 11:44:01 -0500 Margaret Wasserman 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> don't think that this is an onerous requirement.  It is not likely that
> there will be all that much non-electronic communication, such
> communication is typically important (sent to meet legal requirements for
> registered mail, etc.), and I think that the IETF should be able to see
> it.

Just a scaling note....

In my almost 4 years as IETF chair, I think I have received a total of 
approximately 6 paper letters.

One was of a nature that I would classify as "the sender wants to make sure 
I got it and take it seriously", but it was obvious from context that the 
sender did not expect me to make it public.

The 5 others were from a guy who wants the IETF to take on pushing his 
patented technology for doing something that is mostly outside IETF scope, 
and did not include an email contact address....

No, it's not a huge load. Neither is it a very valuable archive.

                  Harald