All, FYI. I thought that this would be VERY interesting reading. It seems that the IETF is suggesting that the MoU now be modified.... Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
From: "Susan R. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 08:30:16 -0400 (EDT) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Below are Poisson minutes from the 45th IETF, Oslo. >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Erik noted that consensus had been reached on the email list concerning >the "IETF Discussion List Charter," draft-ietf-poisson-listaup-00.txt. He >will now issue a formal last call to the WG, and the document will be >submitted to the IESG as a BCP. >---------- >Brian Carpenter reported that the IETF - IANA contract has now been >completed. Randy Bush congratulated the IANA for its superior performance >for many years on behalf of the Internet. >---------- >The group accepted the changes present in version 2 of "IAB and IESG >Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating >and Recall Committees," draft-ietf-poisson-nomcom-v2-00.txt. As reported >by Jim Galvin, those changes are: > >- In honor of the upcoming Adelaide meeting, the accepted terminology > for IETF meetings is now geographic, rather than temporal, i.e., we'll > now refer to each year's "first IETF," rather than the "Spring IETF." >- Previously, all nomcom member terms began and ended during the > first IETF meeting corresponding to the end of the term for which they > were confirmed. Now, it is possible to have member terms overlap > during the IETF meeting, if both members agree that they would like the > opportunity to work together during the conference. I believe this was for IESG members, not nomcom members. See Section 2, item 4. >- If a member of a previous nomcom wishes to communicate some sort > of relevant information to the current committee, it is perfectly > acceptable to do so. >- Any nomcom member may propose the addition of a non-voting > advisor to participate in some or all of the deliberations of the > committee. There was discussion as to whether there should be a limit of > four advisors, and the consensus was that there should be no such limit. > Similarly, any nomcom member may propose the addition of a non-voting > liaison from other unrepresented organizations to participate in > some or all of the deliberations of the committee. >- The document now notes that the Chair selects the 10 voting volunteers > using an unbiased and fair method. Donald Eastlake has kindly prepared an a > additional document specifying how to make "fair" choices from the pool of > nominees. This document is an informative reference, not a normative one. >- If the Chair finds that he or she will not be able to participate > in the next year's nomcom activities, their replacement should come from > the pool of prior years' Chairs, rather than from the current member > body. This expands the pool of candidates, and ensures that a member > seat will not become vacant if a member is selected as the next Chair. It exapnds the pool because it can come from EITHER the previous year's voting members or previous nomcom chairs. >- The nomcom will now place less discretion on the Chair, and more on > the committee itself. For example, the entire committee will now > approve the appointment of a liaison, rather than the Chair alone. >- The document now states explicitly that when someone becomes a > member of the nomcom, they are no longer eligible for an open position. > >Donald noted that the document does not explicitly outline procedures >for launching and carrying out a recall process. It was decided to move >this discussion to the mailing list. If considerable discussion ensues, >the issue will be treated separately from the rest of the draft to ensure >the draft's timely publication. If there is little or no comment, >appropriate language concerning recall procedures will be added to the >draft. >---------- >Scott Bradner provided a status update on the ICANN Protocol Supporting >Organization (PSO), which is being created by an MOU among ICANN and an >international group of standards development organizations (SDO's). (See >"A Proposal for an MOU-Based ICANN Protocol Support Organization," >draft-ietf-poisson-mou-pso-00.txt.) By way of background, Scott briefly >outlined the history of the PSO, which provides for technical review of >proposals that come before ICANN. The PSO cannot tell the SDO's how they >should set standards; rather, its role is to facilitate discussion between >two SDO's if a dispute arises between them. > >One of the issues discussed at the Minneapolis IETF was the organizational >relationship between the PSO and ICANN. It was determined that the PSO >would be a part of ICANN, not a separate organization. With this and many >other matters resolved, a proposal describing the PSO was submitted to >ICANN, which published the proposal for public comment. The proposal was >then approved by the ICANN board, and the next step was to work out the >MOU. > >The group discussed how much advance notice should be required for open >meetings of the PSO Protocol Council. It was decided that 45 days >provides adequate notice for physical meetings, and the MOU will be >modified accordingly. Another change concerns individual appointees of >the SDO's: they will now be renewed annually in order to avoid the >appearance of lifetime appointments. > >Scott noted that the next steps for the IETF are to: > > 1) modify the MOU based on the above changes > 2) sign the MOU at the evening plenary session > 3) nominate the IETF's representative Protocol Council members > 4) select the IETF candidate(s) for the PSO's ICANN Board members seats. > >Scott's presentation was followed by a discussion of whether the IETF >should be a signatory to the MOU, along with the other SDO's (W3C, ITU, >and the European Technical Standards Institute, ETSI). It was determined >that all the signatories meet the SDO criteria outlined in the MOU now, or >are expected to meet them within the next six months. The group therefore >showed clear consensus in favor of the IETF signing the MOU that evening. >--------------- >Fred Baker closed the meeting by thanking Erik Huizer for his outstanding >job leading the POISSON group during the past four years. Erik has >resigned his position in order to take up a new role as head of the IRTF. >The new POISSON chairs will be Jim Galvin and John Klensin. With this >transition, the group will be re-chartered and will become a mailing-list >group, with IETF working group meetings suspended for the time being. Thanks, Donald