Re: #720 and #725 - Appeals and IAD autonomy
I think that the text on appeals and recalls in draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-03.txt is necessary and sufficient. There is a way to get decisions reviewed and a way to get IAOC members fired. I don't want any more than that, and I don't want the IAD formally subject to complaints except via his or her management. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Consensus? #718 Transparency - reports on decisions
According to Merriam-Webster online: Main Entry: 2 minute Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): min?ut?ed; min?ut?ing : to make notes or a brief summary of Brian Sam Hartman wrote: "Harald" == Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Harald> I suggest resolving this by adding the following text to Harald> section 3.4 "IAOC decision making", after the first Harald> paragraph: Harald> All IAOC decisions are minuted. Minutes are published Harald> regularly. I like the intent but don't like the word minuted. How about all IAOC decisions are recorded in the minutes of the IAOC. These minutes are published regularly. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Issue #721: Section 5.1 - Financial statements and Audits [was RE : BCP-02: Financial statements and Audits]
Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: I have seen some discussion on this but I have not seen a consensus call by Harald. In fact I think Harald said that most of the issues on finances and reserves still need more discussion. SO I have not made a change yet. I know we DO want something about GAAP in the document, that seems pretty clear. We don't, really. GAAP is a legal obligation that ISOC already respects, so it's redundant to specify it. But the reference to a separate P&L and balance sheet is useful, I think. Bert -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bernard Aboba Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 16:59 To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: BCP-02: Financial statements and Audits Section 5.1 "For bookkeeping purposes, funds managed by IASA should be accounted for in a separate set of accounts which can be rolled-up periodically to the equivalent of a balance sheet and a profit and loss statement for IASA alone after taking into account the effect of common items paid for or received by ISOC as a whole." I think we want to specify what financial statements are produced in more detail, and how an audit may be triggered. Suggest this be changed to: "For accounting purposes, funds managed by IASA should be accounted for in a separate set of accounts, in order to allow the general of separate financial statements for IASA, after taking into account the allocation of common items paid for or received by ISOC. The allocation of these common items shall be agreed upon between the ISOC and the IAOC as part of the budget process. Financial statements to be produced for IASA include (but are not limited to) an Income (Profit/Loss) Statement, Balance Sheet and Statement of Cash Flows, in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Pinciples (GAAP). Should the IAOC not be satisified with these financial statements, the IAOC shall have the right to request that the ISOC conduct an audit." ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Issue #737: Section 5.3 - Designated Donations [was RE: IASA BCP -02 Designated Donations - section 5.3]
in line... Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: Inline -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Leslie Daigle Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 22:29 To: Brian E Carpenter Cc: ietf@ietf.org; Lynn St.Amour Subject: Re: IASA BCP -02 Designated Donations - section 5.3 Let me try a slightly different cut on the discussion. 1/ I believe the IETF is trying to address the fact we would like to be able to accept support in chunks that are greater than individual meeting fees, and less than $100kUS. IMHO, it's not that the IETF needs to be able to accept donations in *any* size between those, but I have heard people say that they know the person in their company who could write a cheque for $40k, if it will pecifically support the IETF, but there's no way they can get $100k through their budget. My feeling is that we all agree on the above. I have not seen anyone speak up against the principle above. The current text actually does capture that: ISOC shall create and maintain appropriate structures and programs to coordinate donations intended to support the work of the IETF, and these will include mechanisms for both in-kind and direct contributions to the work supported by IASA. Since ISOC will be the sole entity through whom donations may be made to the work of the IETF, ISOC shall ensure that those programs are not unduly restrictive. For the benefit of individuals, smaller organizations and countries with developing economies, ISOC shall maintain programs that allow for designated donations to the IETF. Lynn wants the last sentence removed. I can sort of see that, because it is a detail and it only explains (I think) why we want the programs to not be "unduly restrcitive". What the last sentence may alllude to is that we are thinking about very small size of contributions (I could see individuals wanting to donate like a few tens of dollars a year). And so that is detail, and that indeed needs to be worked out and to be evaluated against possible cost for doing so (as explained somewhat by Lynn). It is probably OK to remove: For the benefit of individuals, smaller organizations and countries with developing economies, ISOC shall maintain programs that allow for designated donations to the IETF. and the text above The ISOC shall create and maintain... covers two items: - ISOC will continue (maintain) the current IETF donor program - ISOC will create (or update) the program to make the program not unduly restrictive. So are we OK on that? Yes 2/ I believe we've also heard the IETF say that it wants to be able to clearly identify its collected assets (and, as the flipside, is willing to pay for all of its expenses). This is driven by a lot of factors, but I think the an important one is that the IETF believes it can and should be financially viable. Taking the bad along with the good, we want to be in an environment where we can prove that out empirically. I personally am not sure I want to "prove" that we (IETF) can and should be financially viable. But I DO want transparency, and as part of thta, I do want to see which donations were tagged and intended for IETF and how they have been allocated/credited to IETF. So my concern has been addressed with the text on transparency. Lynn also stated that we currently see a 90/10 rule in ISOC in that 80% of the donations are under $10K and they bring in some 10% of the all donations (If I understood here posting correctly). If that is the case, then a lower bound of $10K might be fine for explicit tagging. Now ... I have in my mind that the lower limit for tagging is currently $100K. So that seems to be an issue. But if donatins above $10k are only 20% of the (number of) donations, and make up 90% of the money, then allowing tagging of that seems fine. And for me, that seems captured in the "... to make the program not unduly restrictive." text. Exactly 3/ We've heard clear explanations that attracting and managing corporate donations is not a simple task. Specifically, that there are reasons that it's not a simple matter to drop the level of donation necessary for designating donations. I don't believe the BCP needs to have specific text about *how* "1/" and "2/" are achieved. The current text is about "how", and perhaps that's why it does not reconcile with "3/". I agree with 1 and 2 (except for focus on proving a finacial independent IETF). I am not sure we really have documented the "how". I think we have mostly principle in current text" I had been discussing that
Re: Issue #740: Section 2.2 & 5.6 - IASA BCP -02 Reserves
Scott Bradner wrote: Bert quotes lynn and then says Maybe replace the last two sentences with some variation of "Access to these reserves would expect to follow normal IAOC and ISOC approval processes for any budget overruns." I believe that the current text was quite extensively discussed in the past. I am not sure I can just go ahaead and make changes based on one person bringing it up. So I'd like to see more support on the list first. I support Lynn's suggestion Makes sense to me. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Issue #740/755: Section 5.6 - Building a surplus [was RE: Building a surplus]
Fred's comments are realistic, and I think his text takes us in the right direction. Since the reality is that IETF is quite expensive compared to the guaranteed income, we can't bet on a big reserve any time soon. Brian Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: I think we need more discussion on this. But let me add that Lynn had also made suggestions as discussed in issue 740. Maybe we should merge the 2 issues into one? Bert -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Fred Baker Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 06:52 To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Building a surplus -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Based on the discussion on the list including Christian's note that said: The current platinum sponsors of ISOC are Afilias Limited, APNIC, ARIN, Microsoft, RIPE NCC, and the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA). Most of these sponsors, including Microsoft, designate their funds for "standard activities". These standard activities are typically IETF related, but they are not necessarily managed through "the IETF". The current list includes: RFC Editor, scholarship funding for needy IETF participants to attend meetings, activities of the IAB, IESG, IRTF, special workshops of the IETF, travel for IETF related activities, "errors and omissions" insurance coverage for IESG, IAB, and Working Group Chairs, communications charges for conference calls of the IAB, IESG, and IRTF. Forcing a particular bank account structure does not appear helpful. What is helpful, on the other hand, is a yearly report explaining how the contributions are actually used. Even large companies like Microsoft don't like signing $100,000 checks without knowing how the money will be spent. I'd like to suggest that section 5.6 be changed to read: As an initial guideline and in normal operating circumstances, the IASA should be able to count on an operating reserve for its activities sufficient to cover 6-months of non-meeting operational expenses, plus twice the recent average for meeting contract guarantees. Rather than having the IASA attempt to build that reserve in separate accounts, the IASA looks to ISOC to build and provide that operational reserve, through whatever mechanisms ISOC deems appropriate: line of credit, financial reserves, meeting cancellation insurance, and so forth. Such reserves do not appear instantaneously; the goal is to reach this level of reserves within 3 years after the creation of the IASA. Such funds shall be available for use by IASA for use in the event of IETF meeting cancellation or other unexpected fiscal emergencies. Under current conditions it is highly unlikely that an IETF-specific surplus will be developed anytime soon, so I do not think its necessary to spend too much time planning for what to do with one (which I think is what Leslie was saying). In round numbers, the expected budget for the IETF-related activities next year is $4.1 million US (that includes $1.4 million for running meetings and $2.7 million for all other expenses including the IAD, secretariat costs, insurance, RFC Editor, IESG & IAB support etc). If the attendance at the meetings and the meeting fees stay the same, the meetings will bring in about $2 million. That leaves about $2.1 million for the ISOC to pick up. This is about half a million more support than the ISOC budgeted this year, and a bit over double ISOC's 2003 figure. Clearly, any donations to the ISOC like the ones that Christian mentions, that specify that the donations are to be used to support "standard activities" would have to only be used to support standard activities. But it is likely to be a while before such designated donations could exceed the IASA costs that the ISOC will be responsible to cover. Regards, Fred Baker /= / | Fred Baker |1121 Via Del Rey | | Chairman, ISOC BoT |Santa Barbara, California | ++93117 USA | | Nothing will ever be attempted,| phone: +1-408-526-4257 | | if all possible objections must| fax: +1-413-473-2403 | | be first overcome. | mobile:+1-805-637-0529 | | Dr. Johnson, Rasselas, 1759| | /= / -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBQcpgUG4xHWxyLJtDEQLMEgCgju6Dt1YLmcDEGwpYWN2Ki3wl4B8An1dn 0vSraJ2dVBR1WaWUGOHS8x7N =YYYa -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/
Re: Issue #727: Section 2.2, 4, & 7 - Miscellaneous & editorial [was : Last Call Comments on draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-02.txt]
At 1:00 PM +0100 12/23/04, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: This document does not affect the ISOC-IETF working relationship as it relates to standards development or the communication of technical advice relevant to the policy and educational goals of ISOC. >> I'd cite RFCs 2026 and 2048 as references here. Mmm... 2026 seems fine. Not sure about 2048. That is about MIME stuff !!?? So which one do you mean? Probably 2031? Sorry. I meant 2028. But, 2031 is fine, too. >> I'd remove everything after the comma. There is no clear concept >> of what duties and responsibilities would normally be associated >> with such a position, and you have specific responsibilities and >> limits listed later. No change made. It had quite some discussion during rev 01. And we then seemed to have agreed (to me at least) on taking the text from the IAB doc (RFC2850, sect 3.1) and not fiddle with the words (as had been done earlier). So after that earlier discussion on the text, I do not see this as just an editorial change. I personally still object, as I don't (personally) have a clear concept of what duties and responsibilities would normally be associated with the role of IAOC Chair. Would you consider this person to be a peer with the IETF Chair and the IAB Chair, for instance? Any accrued funds, any IETF-specific intellectual property rights, and any IETF-specific data and tools shall also transition to the new entity. >> By "accrued funds", you presumably mean funds that are currently >> held in the IASA accounts. So, why not just say so? Mmm... I am sort of with you. AT the other hand, I see continued discussion about "ISOC should not credit xxx to IASA accounts". So I am not sure your suggestion is just editorial. If we keep all the current text about crediting money to IASA accounts, then it is editorial. But given the ongoing discussion, I have not (yet) made the change. There are two choices here: (1) Either changing "accrued funds" to "funds held in the IASA accounts" is editorial. or (2) The term "accrued funds" needs to better defined. Margaret ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Issue #740: Section 2.2 & 5.6 - IASA BCP -02 Reserves [was RE: I ASA BCP -02 Reserves - section 2.2 /7 and 5.6]
Hi Bert, W.r.t. the "divisional" vs "cost center" coounting We got the text on "Divisional Accounting" and on "sepearet set of accounts" from Glenn Ricart, so what should it be. If we do make a change we need to make it consistent over the whole doc. Probably best to keep that for working out when we sit down with the accountants? When are you planning to sit down with the accountants? The IETF LC for this document is scheduled to end in less than 2 weeks, and this sentence implies (to me anyway) that we still haven't had it reviewed by the accountants? Has it been reviewed by our lawyers? Personally, I would like to see those reviews completed and any related changes made to the document well before the IETF LC ends. >the IASA looks to ISOC to build and provide that operational >reserve, through whatever mechanisms ISOC deems appropriate: line >of credit, financial reserves, meeting cancellation insurance, and >so forth. Such reserves do not appear instantaneously; the goal is >to reach this level of reserves within 3 years after the creation >of the IASA. Such funds shall be held in reserve for use by IASA >for use in the event of IETF meeting cancellation or other >unexpected fiscal emergencies. These reserves shall only be spent >on IETF support functions. The penultimate sentence above seems to be redundant, and in any case the last two sentences are not in agreement with the earlier ones that say it may be held as a line of credit, etc. nor with the notion that the IASA would not be holding a separate reserve (2.2 - 7 seems to imply the same thing?). Finally, access to these reserves would expect to follow normal IAOC and ISOC approval processes for any budget overruns and would not automatically be available for use by IASA in the event of meeting cancellations or other emergencies. Maybe replace the last two sentences with some variation of "Access to these reserves would expect to follow normal IAOC and ISOC approval processes for any budget overruns." I believe that the current text was quite extensively discussed in the past. I am not sure I can just go ahaead and make changes based on one person bringing it up. So I'd like to see more support on the list first. I share Lynn's concerns about this paragraph, particularly the last sentence which is inconsistent with the descriptions of the reserve elsewhere in the document. Margaret ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Issue #727: Section 2.2, 4, & 7 - Miscellaneous & editorial [was : Last Call Comments on draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-02.txt]
--On Sunday, 26 December, 2004 08:35 -0500 Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >> I'd remove everything after the comma. There is no >>> >> clear concept of what duties and responsibilities would >>> >> normally be associated with such a position, and you >>> >> have specific responsibilities and limits listed later. >>> >> No change made. It had quite some discussion during rev 01. >> And we then seemed to have agreed (to me at least) on taking >> the text from the IAB doc (RFC2850, sect 3.1) and not fiddle >> with the words (as had been done earlier). >> So after that earlier discussion on the text, I do not see >> this as just an editorial change. > > I personally still object, as I don't (personally) have a > clear concept of what duties and responsibilities would > normally be associated with the role of IAOC Chair. Would you > consider this person to be a peer with the IETF Chair and the > IAB Chair, for instance? Note, first, that we have never clarified whether the IETF Chair and the IAB Chair are peers. As a former IAB Chair, I have an opinion on that subject, but it might differ from the opinions (and certainly differs from some occasional practices) of prior IETF Chairs. Speaking pragmatically and based on some experience with general organizational behavior as well as that of the IETF... Not having this issue absolutely clear will, sooner or later, lead to a power struggle of some flavor unless the IAOC Chair rotates at a fairly high rate, i.e., the position is clearly one of "chair of current meeting or teleconf", not "Chair of the IAOC". And, while Carl will probably consider that potential power struggle as an edge case too, I think the odds of it occurring and consuming a lot of energy unnecessarily are high enough that it would be good to get this clarified and to be sure that the community is signed up on the clarification. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Consensus? #718 Transparency - reports on decisions
> "Brian" == Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Brian> According to Merriam-Webster online: Main Entry: 2 minute Brian> Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): min?ut?ed; Brian> min?ut?ing : to make notes or a brief summary of Brian> Brian Brian> Sam Hartman wrote: >>> "Harald" == Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> writes: Harald> I suggest resolving this by adding the following text to Harald> section 3.4 "IAOC decision making", after the first Harald> paragraph: All IAOC decisions are minuted. Minutes are Harald> published regularly. >> I like the intent but don't like the word minuted. How about >> all IAOC decisions are recorded in the minutes of the IAOC. >> These minutes are published regularly. >> ___ Ietf mailing >> list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >> I was complaining about style, not grammar. I'd argue that the verb form of minute has low familiarity compared to the plural noun form. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Issue #727: Section 2.2, 4, & 7 - Miscellaneous & editorial [was : Last Call Comments on draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-02.txt]
At last ... This is why the ISOC scheme cannot work. One cannot serve two masters. This rises the question of who has the lead over the Internet R&D (a part from the users). 1. may be it is the time to remember the IRTF and its Chair: this would transform a praxis into a triumvirate. 2. rather then creating a dominance, why not to organize a conflict arbitration, for example by your ICANN BoD position. If there is a conflict, you are the first embarrassed. jfc At 16:22 26/12/2004, John C Klensin wrote: --On Sunday, 26 December, 2004 08:35 -0500 Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >> I'd remove everything after the comma. There is no >>> >> clear concept of what duties and responsibilities would >>> >> normally be associated with such a position, and you >>> >> have specific responsibilities and limits listed later. >>> >> No change made. It had quite some discussion during rev 01. >> And we then seemed to have agreed (to me at least) on taking >> the text from the IAB doc (RFC2850, sect 3.1) and not fiddle >> with the words (as had been done earlier). >> So after that earlier discussion on the text, I do not see >> this as just an editorial change. > > I personally still object, as I don't (personally) have a > clear concept of what duties and responsibilities would > normally be associated with the role of IAOC Chair. Would you > consider this person to be a peer with the IETF Chair and the > IAB Chair, for instance? Note, first, that we have never clarified whether the IETF Chair and the IAB Chair are peers. As a former IAB Chair, I have an opinion on that subject, but it might differ from the opinions (and certainly differs from some occasional practices) of prior IETF Chairs. Speaking pragmatically and based on some experience with general organizational behavior as well as that of the IETF... Not having this issue absolutely clear will, sooner or later, lead to a power struggle of some flavor unless the IAOC Chair rotates at a fairly high rate, i.e., the position is clearly one of "chair of current meeting or teleconf", not "Chair of the IAOC". And, while Carl will probably consider that potential power struggle as an edge case too, I think the odds of it occurring and consuming a lot of energy unnecessarily are high enough that it would be good to get this clarified and to be sure that the community is signed up on the clarification. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Issue #727: Section 2.2, 4, & 7 - Miscellaneous & editorial [was : Last Call Comments on draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-02.txt]
--On Monday, 27 December, 2004 03:00 +0100 "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At last ... This is why the ISOC scheme cannot work. One > cannot serve two masters. This rises the question of who has > the lead over the Internet R&D (a part from the users). No, Jefsey, as is often the case, I can't fathom how your conclusions relate to what has been said. First, the comment has nothing to do with "the ISOC scheme", it is strictly a matter of IETF-IASA leadership relationships and would exist no matter what relationship the IASA has to ISOC. Second, this has very little, if anything, to do with "Internet R&D" leadership, at least as I understand those terms: insofar as anyone in the IETF-linked structures have any leadership role there, it is clearly the IAB and not either the standards functions of the IETF or any administrative body. And, again, this is independent of any links to ISOC or the absence of them. And... > 1. may be it is the time to remember the IRTF and its Chair: > this would transform a praxis into a triumvirate. Except that there is no ambiguity of relationships with the IRTF leadership, and it was that ambiguity which Margaret and I were addressing. The IRTF Chair is appointed by the IAB and essentially serves at the IAB's pleasure. > 2. rather then creating a dominance, why not to organize a > conflict arbitration, for example by your ICANN BoD position. > If there is a conflict, you are the first embarrassed. First, because ICANN has absolutely nothing to do with this and the only value of dragging them into it would be to add considerable confusion about roles and relationships. To put it mildly, I don't favor such confusion. You may, of course, disagree. Second, my "ICANN BoD position" is a liaison one only. I'm appointed by the IAB, serve at their pleasure, and feel obligated to follow any instructions I get from them when I am acting in that capacity. So injecting me, or future occupants of that role, into this situation would essentially just give the IAB the controlling vote. It would not provide a basis for impartial arbitration, but would, in your language, just be a different way to "create a dominance". john > At 16:22 26/12/2004, John C Klensin wrote: > >> --On Sunday, 26 December, 2004 08:35 -0500 Margaret Wasserman >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >>> >> I'd remove everything after the comma. There is no >> >>> >> clear concept of what duties and responsibilities >> >>> >> would normally be associated with such a position, >> >>> >> and you have specific responsibilities and limits >> >>> >> listed later. >> >>> >> >> No change made. It had quite some discussion during rev 01. >> >> And we then seemed to have agreed (to me at least) on >> >> taking the text from the IAB doc (RFC2850, sect 3.1) and >> >> not fiddle with the words (as had been done earlier). >> >> So after that earlier discussion on the text, I do not see >> >> this as just an editorial change. >> > >> > I personally still object, as I don't (personally) have a >> > clear concept of what duties and responsibilities would >> > normally be associated with the role of IAOC Chair. Would >> > you consider this person to be a peer with the IETF Chair >> > and the IAB Chair, for instance? >> >> Note, first, that we have never clarified whether the IETF >> Chair and the IAB Chair are peers. As a former IAB Chair, I >> have an opinion on that subject, but it might differ from the >> opinions (and certainly differs from some occasional >> practices) of prior IETF Chairs. >> >> Speaking pragmatically and based on some experience with >> general organizational behavior as well as that of the >> IETF... Not having this issue absolutely clear will, sooner >> or later, lead to a power struggle of some flavor unless the >> IAOC Chair rotates at a fairly high rate, i.e., the position >> is clearly one of "chair of current meeting or teleconf", not >> "Chair of the IAOC". >> >> And, while Carl will probably consider that potential power >> struggle as an edge case too, I think the odds of it occurring >> and consuming a lot of energy unnecessarily are high enough >> that it would be good to get this clarified and to be sure >> that the community is signed up on the clarification. >> >>john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Issue #727: Section 2.2, 4, & 7 - Miscellaneous & editorial [was : Last Call Comments on draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-02.txt]
At 05:36 27/12/2004, John C Klensin wrote: --On Monday, 27 December, 2004 03:00 +0100 "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At last ... This is why the ISOC scheme cannot work. One > cannot serve two masters. This rises the question of who has > the lead over the Internet R&D (a part from the users). No, Jefsey, as is often the case, I can't fathom how your conclusions relate to what has been said. As usual you see the things with your internal IAB/IETF culture. When you rise a problem you very often presuppose that this culture is right. So you have real difficulty to understand that as an IAB/IETF customer I first consider if the problem does not root in that very culture, what is IMHO often the case. Since I know you are quite concerned by multilingualism may be will you understand this with the example of the RFC 3869. It is a pure IAB product calling for Govs funding, yet not even quoting multlingualism while is is the key Govs priority. First, the comment has nothing to do with "the ISOC scheme", it is strictly a matter of IETF-IASA leadership relationships and would exist no matter what relationship the IASA has to ISOC. Again, you only consider your own concerns - and I wander what you may think I refer to??? When I say "ISOC scheme" I do not discuss the way you want the IETF to relate with ISOC, but the very choice of using ISOC to host the IASA. As long as IETF is not incorporated with its own BoD the administrative tasks will relate with two bosses and will be hosted by a third one. I succeeded for years to be exactly in that situation: believe me this gives a total autonomy. I only feared first for my salary rises but I soon discovered that this too was an auction :-) Second, this has very little, if anything, to do with "Internet R&D" leadership, at least as I understand those terms: insofar as anyone in the IETF-linked structures have any leadership role there, it is clearly the IAB and not either the standards functions of the IETF or any administrative body. Never considered that this might be a problem? And, again, this is independent of any links to ISOC or the absence of them. And... > 1. may be it is the time to remember the IRTF and its Chair: > this would transform a praxis into a triumvirate. Except that there is no ambiguity of relationships with the IRTF leadership, and it was that ambiguity which Margaret and I were addressing. The IRTF Chair is appointed by the IAB and essentially serves at the IAB's pleasure. This is exactly what, as an IETF/IAB/IRTF customer I think "urgent" to reconsider for a long > 2. rather then creating a dominance, why not to organize a > conflict arbitration, for example by your ICANN BoD position. > If there is a conflict, you are the first embarrassed. First, because ICANN has absolutely nothing to do with this and the only value of dragging them into it would be to add considerable confusion about roles and relationships. You see the things again from your IAB/IETF point of view. ICANN has nothing to do with this. What has to do is that this position is the only IAB/IETF "liaison" with the external world. There is not even an IAB/IETF member at the WGIG. To put it mildly, I don't favor such confusion. You may, of course, disagree. Second, my "ICANN BoD position" is a liaison one only. Yes. And if there is an internal conflict there will be a long internal delay with an e-mailing logorhea as only consequence. You will be the only one to have to document it outside and this way may be to see it in a different perspective, with probably other kinds of advices. The "liaison" being someone usually chosen for his experience, common sense and IAB/IETF good knowledge and trust, it could be the best internal and external facilitator we could have in case of difficulties. The experience of your current tenure shows it. I'm appointed by the IAB, serve at their pleasure, and feel obligated to follow any instructions I get from them when I am acting in that capacity. So injecting me, or future occupants of that role, into this situation would essentially just give the IAB the controlling vote. Here, I do not understand. You say IAB as the leadership, anyway. The concern you rise and I share is not that at the end of the day non one decides, but that it takes time and hurts. In what I suggest there is no vote but arbitration and reasonable advices. In a less conflicting situation due to the restored weight of IRTF. It would not provide a basis for impartial arbitration, but would, in your language, just be a different way to "create a dominance". You will not change that someone has eventually to take a decision. We only want to avoid conflicts. There only a need for decision facilitation. Simplest is an IETF BoD, smoother an experienced and open minded selected facilitator. BTW I do not understand why you rise the question if you think the IAB Chair has the con. Happy Xmas. jfc john > At 16:22 26/12/2004, John C Kl
happy holidays
I just wanted to write a quick note to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a Joyous New Year. I hope everyone is having a wonderful holiday season and that this note finds everyone in good health and spirits. May the New Year bring you happiness and well being. Regards, Marcus Wentrcek Ntegrated Consulting -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sam Hartman Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 10:32 AM To: Brian E Carpenter Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Consensus? #718 Transparency - reports on decisions > "Brian" == Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Brian> According to Merriam-Webster online: Main Entry: 2 minute Brian> Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): min?ut?ed; Brian> min?ut?ing : to make notes or a brief summary of Brian> Brian Brian> Sam Hartman wrote: >>> "Harald" == Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> writes: Harald> I suggest resolving this by adding the following text to Harald> section 3.4 "IAOC decision making", after the first Harald> paragraph: All IAOC decisions are minuted. Minutes are Harald> published regularly. >> I like the intent but don't like the word minuted. How about >> all IAOC decisions are recorded in the minutes of the IAOC. >> These minutes are published regularly. >> ___ Ietf mailing >> list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >> I was complaining about style, not grammar. I'd argue that the verb form of minute has low familiarity compared to the plural noun form. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
