RE: Suggested resolution - #826: Section 4 - Removal of the IAOC Chair
--On mandag, januar 31, 2005 23:56:27 +0100 "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So (assuming 5/8 for now), the text would look like: The Chair serves at the pleasure of the IAOC, and may be removed from that position at any time by a vote of 5/8 of the voting IAOC members. That is what I now have in my editing buffer. I think at least 2 people preferred to say "2/3 of the voting IAOC members, not counting the IAOC chair", which would have the same effect on numbers. I could live with that. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Monday consensus text: #725 Appealing decisions
--On tirsdag, februar 01, 2005 01:04:39 +0100 "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From Haralds latest text (below), the 2nd para reads: In the case where someone questions whether a decision or action of the IAD or the IAOC has been undertaken in accordance with IETF BCPs or IASA operational guidelines (including the question of whether appropriate guidelines have been created or maintained), he or she may ask the IAOC for a formal review of the decision or action. Rob and certainly I (when editing this) had to read this 2 or 3 times. We think that the following (in our view) purely editorial change would make it more readable: If a member of the IETF community questions whether a decision or action of the IAD or the IAOC has been undertaken in accordance with IETF BCPs or IASA operational guidelines, or questions whether the IASA has created and maintained appropriate guidelines, he or she may ask the IAOC for a formal review of the decision or action. OK? Certainly OK with me. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: some pending IASA issues
At 21:40 30/01/2005, Sam Hartman wrote: > "JFC" == JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: JFC> 2. ISOC is an international organization, yet there is no JFC> indication about relations with ISOC local chapters. For JFC> organizing local IETF lists, assisting with IETF meetings, JFC> documenting specific local issues when requested, encouraging JFC> regional workshops, meetings, shows, publications. This JFC> should be noted in a short paragraph to acknowledge JFC> national/regional contributions and support and to leave open JFC> any further suggestion/development. Cost: 3lines to be added. I agree it is appropriate for ISOC to discuss local chapters. How do you see this impacting the IASA BCP? Can you give an example of what sort of change you are talking about? Proposed text and an indication of where it should go in the document would be best. The target is not to modify the Internet process but to anchor it in its international context and to promote local contributions. There is a coming IETF meeting in Paris. The French ISOC chapter was not informed, we have no local contact. The discussion about the weather in Paris, would have been a good occasion to prepare more ties. There are specific needs that come from different situations and different cultures, as the current Pacific Debate on Governance shows it. These needs need to be documented and addressed. Also, ISOC chapter could help some local PRs. IETF is a complex/heavy process to follow for individuals. Helping local teams to gather can only help research and proposition seeds to be introduced by independent/small companies and schools. This is certainly something ISOC Chapters can help. I think we could add in part 7 after "Independence": International: ISOC shall work with its local Chapters, the IAD and IAOC to document how the IETF meetings and Internet standard process could take advantage from the ISOC international presence and market knowledge. JFC> 3. Regional representation. Most of the Internet JFC> organizations make sure their BoD is regionally JFC> distributed. This is not appropriate for a technical entity, JFC> however IAOC is an administrative body. I would suggest the JFC> Draft Section 4 to include a recommendation (not an JFC> obligation) that all the main parts of the world are JFC> represented at the IAOC. Cost: 2 lines to be added. I agree that regional location is an important factor to consider when selecting IAOC members. Yes. But, it should only be mentionned as a recommendation. So there is no embarrassing obligation. As for suggested ISOC Chapters and multilingualism, the target is to open the way to further work on the issue. jfc ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Monday consensus text: #725 Appealing decisions
>From Haralds latest text (below), the 2nd para reads: > In the case where someone questions whether a decision or action of the > IAD or the IAOC has been undertaken in accordance with IETF BCPs or > IASA operational guidelines (including the question of whether > appropriate guidelines have been created or maintained), he or she may > ask the IAOC for a formal review of the decision or action. > Rob and certainly I (when editing this) had to read this 2 or 3 times. We think that the following (in our view) purely editorial change would make it more readable: If a member of the IETF community questions whether a decision or action of the IAD or the IAOC has been undertaken in accordance with IETF BCPs or IASA operational guidelines, or questions whether the IASA has created and maintained appropriate guidelines, he or she may ask the IAOC for a formal review of the decision or action. OK? Bert p.s. John, In my editing buffer I have also fixed the last para to make it "IAB and ISOC BoT" instead of "IESG and ISOC" -- latest tex from Harald from Monday): > Still - I think this is a text that is possible to live with. > > 3.5 Review and Appeal of IAD and IAOC Decision > > The IAOC is directly accountable to the IETF community for the > performance of the IASA. In order to achieve this, the IAOC and IAD > will ensure that guidelines are developed for regular operational > decision making. Where appropriate, these guidelines should be > developed with public input. In all cases, they must be made public. > > In the case where someone questions whether a decision or action of the > IAD or the IAOC has been undertaken in accordance with IETF BCPs or > IASA operational guidelines (including the question of whether > appropriate guidelines have been created or maintained), he or she may > ask the IAOC for a formal review of the decision or action. > > The request for review is addressed to the IAOC chair and should include > a description of the decision or action to be reviewed, an explanation > of how, in the requestor's opinion, the decision or action violates the > BCPs or operational guidelines, and a suggestion for how the situation > could be rectified. All requests for review > will be publicly posted, and the IAOC is expected to respond to these > requests within a reasonable period, typically within 90 days. It is up > to the IAOC to determine what type of review and response is required, > based on the nature of the review request. > Based on the results of the review, the IAOC may choose to overturn > their own decision, change their operational guidelines to prevent > further misunderstandings, take other action as appropriate, or just > publish the review result and take no other action. > > If a member of the community is not satisfied with the IAOC's response > to his or her review request, he or she may escalate the issue by > appealing the decision or action to the IAB, using the appeals > procedures outlined > in RFC 2026 [RFC2026]. If he or she is not satisfied with the IAB > response, he or she can escalate the issue to the ISOC > Board of Trustees, as described in RFC 2026. > > The reviewing body (IAB or ISOC BoT) will review the decision of the > IAD or IAOC to determine whether it was made in accordance with existing > BCPs and operational guidelines. As a result of this review, the > reviewing body may recommend to the community that the BCPs > governing IAOC actions should be changed. > It may also advise the IAOC to modify existing operational guidelines > to avoid similar issues in the future and/or may advise the IAOC to > re-consider their decision or action. > It may also recommend that no action be taken based on the review. > > In exceptional cases, when no other recourse seems reasonable, the > reviewing body may overturn or reverse a non-binding decision or > action of the IAOC. This should be done after careful consideration > and consultation with the IAOC regarding the ramifications of this > action. In no circumstances may the IESG or IAB overturn a decision of > the IAOC that involves a binding contract or overturn a personnel- > related action (such as hiring, firing, promotion, demotion, > performance reviews, salary adjustments, etc.). > > Comments? > > Harald > > > ___ > 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: Perhaps clarify: #825 - IASA responsibilities regarding IPR
On Monday, January 31, 2005 06:24:46 PM -0500 "Contreras, Jorge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Domain names are not IPR. For this purpose, I would treat them like IPR I agree that the IASA should be responsible for managing them. But it is dangerous for an IETF process document to use phrasing like "IPR... including domain names", because that implies that we consider domain names to be intellectual property. I do not believe that to be the consensus of the IETF. Actually, now that I think about it, the IASA is _not_ necessarily responsible for managing "all domain names that belong to the IETF". For example, it could be argued that .ARPA "belongs to the IETF", but its management is clearly the domain of the IAB. There must be a distinction between domain names established to support the operation of the IETF (managed by IASA) and domain names established via the standards process. So I guess I have two concerns here: - Don't lump "domain names" in with "IPR". - Do distinguish between domain names IASA manages and those it does not. What about patents? IETF should not be getting patents on anything. The IASA may acquire patent rights as a result of work done for it under contract, or as the result of donations. It may acquire patent licenses. However, on rereading, the proposed text says "including but not limited to", which is good enough for me. -- Jeff ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Perhaps clarify: #825 - IASA responsibilities regarding IPR
--On Monday, 31 January, 2005 16:04 -0500 Jeffrey Hutzelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>The IASA is responsible for managing all IPR, including >>but not > ^^^ >>limited to trademarks, domain names, and copyrights, that >>belongs to the IETF. It is responsible for undertaking any >>and all required actions on behalf of the IETF to obtain, >>protect and manage the rights that the IETF needs to carry >>out its work. > > - Please spell out "intellectual property rights". yeah > - Domain names are not IPR. While I would personally agree with you, this assertion would come as a surprise to, and be hotly contested by, many of those who hang around ICANN. > - What about patents? What about them? The IETF doesn't own any and, as far as I know, doesn't want to own any and, given its mission, shouldn't own any. In the unlikely event that it needed patent licenses to carry out its work (something that many of us would fight to the last drop of the blood of whomever proposed it), those licenses would be covered by the second sentence above. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Perhaps clarify: #825 - IASA responsibilities regarding IPR
- Please spell out "intellectual property rights". > I think that IPR was defined elsewhere - Domain names are not IPR. > For this purpose, I would treat them like IPR - What about patents? > IETF should not be getting patents on anything. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Perhaps clarify: #825 - IASA responsibilities regarding IPR
Thanks. SO this is what I now have in my edit buffer: The IASA is responsible for managing all IPR, including but not limited to trademarks, domain names, and copyrights, that belong to the IETF. It is responsible for undertaking any and all required actions on behalf of the IETF to obtain, protect and manage the rights that the IETF needs to carry out its work. Bert > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > Contreras, Jorge > Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 19:01 > To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand; ietf@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Perhaps clarify: #825 - IASA responsibilities > regarding IPR > > > >I suggest we change the text in section 3 from: > > > The IASA is responsible for undertaking any and all > required actions > > that involve trademarks on behalf of the IETF. > > > >to: > > > > The IASA is responsible for managing all IPR, including but not > > limited to trademarks, domain names, and copyrights, that belongs > > to the IETF. It is responsible for undertaking any and > > all required actions on behalf of the IETF to obtain, protect and > > manage the rights that the IETF needs to carry out its work. > > >I'm sure Jorge could phrase it better. but I think the meaning > >is clear. > > That looks good. In line 2, "belongs" should be "belong", > but otherwise I don't have any other improvements. > > > > > ___ > 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: Suggested resolution - #826: Section 4 - Removal of the IAOC Chair
So (assuming 5/8 for now), the text would look like: The Chair serves at the pleasure of the IAOC, and may be removed from that position at any time by a vote of 5/8 of the voting IAOC members. That is what I now have in my editing buffer. OK? Bert > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Harald > Tveit Alvestrand > Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 21:43 > To: Kai Henningsen; ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Suggested resolution - #826: Section 4 - Removal of the > IAOC Chair > > > > > --On lørdag, januar 29, 2005 11:47:00 +0200 Kai Henningsen > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> It was the fraction "2/3" that Russ objected to in the first place, > >> pointing out that this means 6 out of 8 if everyone's > present - which he > >> thought was too much of a required majority. > > > > Which just points to a lower fraction, not to absolute numbers. > > I understand that you and Scott both think the same thing - > although I > don't understand why, I'll ask the question in a different > way - is using > the term "5/8 of the voting members" an acceptable phrase? > As long as we have 8 voting members, that translates to 5 members. > > For those who want to see what they are discussing under different > scenarios, here is the number of people needed to remove the > chair with > varying fractions and varying number of members of the IAOC: > > Number Out of 8 Out of 7 Out of 6 Out of 5 > 3/46 654 > 2/36 544 > 5/85 544 > > Harald > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Comment on draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-05
Fine with me. At 05:22 PM 1/31/2005, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: The current text I now have for this in my edit buffer os as follows: The IAOC members shall not receive any compensation from the IASA, ISOC or IETF for their services as members of the IAOC. OK? Bert > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > Russ Housley > Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 17:52 > To: ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Comment on draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-05 > > > I have a minor issue. Section 4 says: > > The IAOC members shall not receive any compensation for their > services as members of the IAOC. > > Clearly, some people are allowed to work on IETF stuff during > hour paid for > by their employers. Thus, they are compensated. We need to > be more clear > here., perhaps: " ... shall not receive any compensation from > IASA or the > IETF ..." > > Russ > > > ___ > 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: Comment on draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-05
The current text I now have for this in my edit buffer os as follows: The IAOC members shall not receive any compensation from the IASA, ISOC or IETF for their services as members of the IAOC. OK? Bert > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > Russ Housley > Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 17:52 > To: ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Comment on draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-05 > > > I have a minor issue. Section 4 says: > > The IAOC members shall not receive any compensation for their > services as members of the IAOC. > > Clearly, some people are allowed to work on IETF stuff during > hour paid for > by their employers. Thus, they are compensated. We need to > be more clear > here., perhaps: " ... shall not receive any compensation from > IASA or the > IETF ..." > > Russ > > > ___ > 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: Monday consensus text: #725 Appealing decisions
Howdy, I can't entirely agree with the argumentation, in part because (and again this goes back to how the text first appeared) metrics are useful to establish the state of the system, whether to critique the state or simply understand it. Appeal is only one form of critique. That said -- I'm not planning to say any more on the subject. It's not something I'm suggesting should stop the document, either way! Leslie. John C Klensin wrote: --On Monday, 31 January, 2005 14:00 -0500 Leslie Daigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Howdy, I'm a little concerned about hacking the appeals path on the fly (i.e., dropping the IESG and going straight to IAB), but I can live with that. WRT this: Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > - Removed the para about metrics. That's not part of this section. > Could go under "IAD responsibilities". But I think they're not critical. I think it should appear in the document. Either in the IAD responsibilities (as you've suggested), or I can send more text as to how it pertains to appeals. That is, it's easier to avoid appeals when there is concrete data on the table, and/or support them where appropriate. I don't think people want more text at this point. So, perhaps just putting it in the IAD section is the easiest path at this time. Leslie, FWIW, in the spirit of Sam's note, I'd like to suggest that this doesn't belong in the document at all, but in some informal list of things we expect the IAD to do and will hold her or him (and the IAOC) accountable if enough of it isn't done. That is the "less text" rather than "no more" theme. I don't consider that a showstopper one way or the other, however... If it is to be put in as an IAD responsibility, it needs to be clear that "better measurement" is _not_ more important than getting the job done. My version of your comment about appeals is that, if the job is being done, and done well, meaningful appeals won't happen. If it is not being done, then the major benefit of extensive data is either to help prove that it isn't being done (which will probably be obvious) or to aid in telling those launching the appeal to go away... the latter if extensive, but irrelevant, data are collected. And I note that the original text did not require relevant metrics, interpretable metrics, or the like, just metrics. It shouldn't: those terms are nearly meaningless without careful definitions, and attempting to make those definitions would draw us into more and more detail that doesn't belong in the BCP even if we could agree on them.But "there will be metrics" don't necessarily aid in getting the job done and may actually impede it. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Perhaps clarify: #825 - IASA responsibilities regarding IPR
The IASA is responsible for managing all IPR, including but not ^^^ limited to trademarks, domain names, and copyrights, that belongs to the IETF. It is responsible for undertaking any and all required actions on behalf of the IETF to obtain, protect and manage the rights that the IETF needs to carry out its work. - Please spell out "intellectual property rights". - Domain names are not IPR. - What about patents? -- Jeffrey T. Hutzelman (N3NHS) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sr. Research Systems Programmer School of Computer Science - Research Computing Facility Carnegie Mellon University - Pittsburgh, PA ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Monday consensus text: #725 Appealing decisions
--On Monday, 31 January, 2005 14:00 -0500 Leslie Daigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Howdy, > > I'm a little concerned about hacking the appeals path on the > fly (i.e., dropping the IESG and going straight to IAB), but > I can live with that. > > WRT this: > > Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > > - Removed the para about metrics. That's not part of this > section. > > Could go under "IAD responsibilities". But I think they're > not critical. > > I think it should appear in the document. Either in the IAD > responsibilities (as you've suggested), or I can send more text > as to how it pertains to appeals. That is, it's easier to > avoid appeals when there is concrete data on the table, and/or > support them where appropriate. > > I don't think people want more text at this point. So, perhaps > just putting it in the IAD section is the easiest path at this > time. Leslie, FWIW, in the spirit of Sam's note, I'd like to suggest that this doesn't belong in the document at all, but in some informal list of things we expect the IAD to do and will hold her or him (and the IAOC) accountable if enough of it isn't done. That is the "less text" rather than "no more" theme. I don't consider that a showstopper one way or the other, however... If it is to be put in as an IAD responsibility, it needs to be clear that "better measurement" is _not_ more important than getting the job done. My version of your comment about appeals is that, if the job is being done, and done well, meaningful appeals won't happen. If it is not being done, then the major benefit of extensive data is either to help prove that it isn't being done (which will probably be obvious) or to aid in telling those launching the appeal to go away... the latter if extensive, but irrelevant, data are collected. And I note that the original text did not require relevant metrics, interpretable metrics, or the like, just metrics. It shouldn't: those terms are nearly meaningless without careful definitions, and attempting to make those definitions would draw us into more and more detail that doesn't belong in the BCP even if we could agree on them.But "there will be metrics" don't necessarily aid in getting the job done and may actually impede it. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Monday consensus text: #725 Appealing decisions
Howdy, I'm a little concerned about hacking the appeals path on the fly (i.e., dropping the IESG and going straight to IAB), but I can live with that. WRT this: Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > - Removed the para about metrics. That's not part of this section. > Could go under "IAD responsibilities". But I think they're not critical. I think it should appear in the document. Either in the IAD responsibilities (as you've suggested), or I can send more text as to how it pertains to appeals. That is, it's easier to avoid appeals when there is concrete data on the table, and/or support them where appropriate. I don't think people want more text at this point. So, perhaps just putting it in the IAD section is the easiest path at this time. Leslie. Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: Lots of commentary on this one, some principle-based, some pointing out where the text-as-written said something that was Obviously Wrong. I've tuned the text below to: - Removed the para about metrics. That's not part of this section. Could go under "IAD responsibilities". But I think they're not critical. - Go straight to the IAB on the appeals path. - Clarified that "do nothing but answer" is a valid option when responding - Changed "initiate work on changing the BCP" to "recommend to the comnunity that the BCPs should be changed" Most responses on the list have spoken in favour of leaving the last section (overturn decisions) in; John pointed out that it's completely unclear what the real rules for this type of action is. And I still don't like it. Still - I think this is a text that is possible to live with. 3.5 Review and Appeal of IAD and IAOC Decision The IAOC is directly accountable to the IETF community for the performance of the IASA. In order to achieve this, the IAOC and IAD will ensure that guidelines are developed for regular operational decision making. Where appropriate, these guidelines should be developed with public input. In all cases, they must be made public. In the case where someone questions whether a decision or action of the IAD or the IAOC has been undertaken in accordance with IETF BCPs or IASA operational guidelines (including the question of whether appropriate guidelines have been created or maintained), he or she may ask the IAOC for a formal review of the decision or action. The request for review is addressed to the IAOC chair and should include a description of the decision or action to be reviewed, an explanation of how, in the requestor's opinion, the decision or action violates the BCPs or operational guidelines, and a suggestion for how the situation could be rectified. All requests for review will be publicly posted, and the IAOC is expected to respond to these requests within a reasonable period, typically within 90 days. It is up to the IAOC to determine what type of review and response is required, based on the nature of the review request. Based on the results of the review, the IAOC may choose to overturn their own decision, change their operational guidelines to prevent further misunderstandings, take other action as appropriate, or just publish the review result and take no other action. If a member of the community is not satisfied with the IAOC's response to his or her review request, he or she may escalate the issue by appealing the decision or action to the IAB, using the appeals procedures outlined in RFC 2026 [RFC2026]. If he or she is not satisfied with the IAB response, he or she can escalate the issue to the ISOC Board of Trustees, as described in RFC 2026. The reviewing body (IAB or ISOC BoT) will review the decision of the IAD or IAOC to determine whether it was made in accordance with existing BCPs and operational guidelines. As a result of this review, the reviewing body may recommend to the community that the BCPs governing IAOC actions should be changed. It may also advise the IAOC to modify existing operational guidelines to avoid similar issues in the future and/or may advise the IAOC to re-consider their decision or action. It may also recommend that no action be taken based on the review. In exceptional cases, when no other recourse seems reasonable, the reviewing body may overturn or reverse a non-binding decision or action of the IAOC. This should be done after careful consideration and consultation with the IAOC regarding the ramifications of this action. In no circumstances may the IESG or IAB overturn a decision of the IAOC that involves a binding contract or overturn a personnel- related action (such as hiring, firing, promotion, demotion, performance reviews, salary adjustments, etc.). Comments? Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___
RE: Perhaps clarify: #825 - IASA responsibilities regarding IPR
>I suggest we change the text in section 3 from: > The IASA is responsible for undertaking any and all required actions > that involve trademarks on behalf of the IETF. > >to: > > The IASA is responsible for managing all IPR, including but not > limited to trademarks, domain names, and copyrights, that belongs > to the IETF. It is responsible for undertaking any and > all required actions on behalf of the IETF to obtain, protect and > manage the rights that the IETF needs to carry out its work. >I'm sure Jorge could phrase it better. but I think the meaning >is clear. That looks good. In line 2, "belongs" should be "belong", but otherwise I don't have any other improvements. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: some pending IASA issues
At 10:10 31/01/2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: Jefsey, at most other times, I would not have commented on this at all. Today, the day before we plan to cut the "final" version of this document, it seems appropriate to comment on why your "issues" Dear Harald, If you want the IETF to continue, there will be a judge to this effort: real life. Real life is that IPv6 is still not being deployed. Real life is that people are not excited about two keyboards IDNs. If you accept that the Internet is the adherence to the IETF documents, the first thing is to make sure people trust the IETF and adhere (know and support) to its process. should NOT be addressed. Sounds like as if I succeeded in documenting exactly what this document is NOT about! I suggest next time you start discussing something you call on me and ask what I think important (with a substantial part of the world) so you know exactly what you have not to cover. If this may help, you welcome. Remember always that the cost of text in the document is not about lines of text - it is about the organizational pain and suffering that comes from trying to fit actions to a maze of ill-thought-out random restrictions. Absolutely true. This is not in constraining reality that you will shape it. Your decision. Now, "ill-tought-out random restrictions" does not exactly describes propositions to permit a further open investigation on world's documented priorities. Or my Franglish is worst than I thought. That said. --On 29. januar 2005 12:43 +0100 "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I would like to rise a few points IRT the IASA effort. Keeping in mind that Members will have to adopt it and the world to trust it. 1. Transparence is of the essence: I would advise the Transition Team http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/adminrest/transteam page to be linked on the http://ietf.org main page. Important information such as the bios of the members (including corporate relations and geographical area) are missing. If you want to know more about these people, ask, and explain why. I'm not going to tell the TT members to waste time on writing bios rather than doing the work that is needed. OK. Your decision. But transparency is at this type of cost. I fully understand that IETF is not a PR agency. But it is like everyone else: it needs customers. This reform is going to cost in money and in trust. Every change in life does. The http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-05.txt current draft should be linked there. Go one level up. That's the main page. KISS. You are not in an Ivory Tower. You are selling the IETF deliverables. 2. ISOC is an international organization, yet there is no indication about relations with ISOC local chapters. For organizing local IETF lists, assisting with IETF meetings, documenting specific local issues when requested, encouraging regional workshops, meetings, shows, publications. This should be noted in a short paragraph to acknowledge national/regional contributions and support and to leave open any further suggestion/development. Cost: 3lines to be added. The IETF has never attempted to have an organization along geographical lines. ISOC has such an organization, but that bears no formal relationship with the standards process. This document is not about changing the standards process. This document IS obviously to change the standard process. In which way, I do not know, but it will. Simply because life is changing and the world outside has/is/will change. Please reread the RFC 1958 first and single principle. The standardization process calls for innovation. Innovation calls for projects and brainstorming. This cannot be easily catalyzed in the current structure: experience shows it. Its complexity filters out independent/small corporation searchers and users propositions. This is why different geo areas start fostering local research teams. As they cannot stay local another organization will foster their common effort. Or did you accept IETF will not deal with NGN? 3. Regional representation. Most of the Internet organizations make sure their BoD is regionally distributed. This is not appropriate for a technical entity, however IAOC is an administrative body. I would suggest the Draft Section 4 to include a recommendation (not an obligation) that all the main parts of the world are represented at the IAOC. Cost: 2 lines to be added. The IAOC is an administrative body for a technical entity. So "not appropriate" applies. If you say so. Your decision. 4. multilingualism. There is no provision for Secretariat and Editor translations services, nor for the IAD command of languages. This is surprising in a 7260 languages world. I do not say the IAD is to speak many languages nor that publications are to be translated. But I definitely say that this question must be addressed with a policy statement. This statement could be that at the present time the multilingualism issue is not addressed, but should be inclu
Re: Mud. Clear as. Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5
Sam, For whatever it is worth, I could not agree more with your formulation. Although you have stated it better than I have, I think our conclusions are much the same: trying to formalize all of this and write into formal text just gets us tied into more knots and risks edge cases and abuses that could be quite problematic. At the same time, if the community --and the IAOC and IAD-- don't accept and follow the general principles you have described, we are in a degree of trouble that formal appeals procedures probably won't fix. And I don't think that is "...mostly at nothing". best, john --On Thursday, 27 January, 2005 22:44 -0500 Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think we are very close here. I can live with Margaret's > text with Leslie's proposed changes. It's actually very close > to something I would be happy with. > > I've been rethinking my position since yesterday. I realized > that most of what I want does not require formalism or > requires very little formalism. In particular, I'm happy to > live with a system in which decisions are not overturned > except by the IAOC (although I like In addition, I think > requiring requests for appeal/review to be acted on when they > are simply arguing that decision is bad instead of that > decisions did not follow written procedures/rules would be > open to abuse. > > > Here is what I want in addition to Margaret's formulation. I > want to see if I can get agreement on these (I suspect the > answer will be yes) before working on text. IT may turn out > that the BCP is the wrong place for such text. > > * The IAOC can choose to overturn or otherwise act to reverse a > decision if it believes that is the best course of action to > follow. Examples include changing procedures if they happen > not to work very well or attempting to buy out or terminate > a contract if it is clear that the contract is no longer in > the IASA's best interest. > > * Members of the IAOC may take into account comments from the > community and may decide to reconsider a decision based on > such comments even if no formal requirement to review the > decision or to respond to the comments exists. In other > words if the community convinces the IAOC they were wrong, > it is reasonable for the IAOC to go do something about it. > > * The IAOC should listen to comments. By this I mean that > they should be aware of comments they are receiving and > weight them according to their value. It's fine to ignore > pointless comments; probably even fine to pay less attention > to comments from people who have a track record of not > providing useful input. It would not be desirable for the > IAOC to have completely ignored a constructive, > well-reasoned comment simply because there was no formal > obligation to respond to the comment. (The IAOC still might > not respond, but someone should have at least read the > comment and considered what it said) > > * It is reasonable for individuals, groups or organized bodies > to comment to the community and the IAOC on IAOC decisions. > For example if the IAOC selected a meeting sight according > to its criteria and the IESG noticed that many working > group chairs and document authors were unwilling to come to > this sight, it would be reasonable for the IESG to inform > the IAOC of this observation. Depending on costs of > canceling a meeting, it might (although probably would not) > be reasonable for the IESG to ask the IAOC to reconsider. > > > > When I phrase things this way instead of in thinking about > them in the context of formal appeals and reviews, they become > stunningly obvious at least for me. If these things are not > true, I don't think we are living up to an open transparent > process receptive to the needs of the IETF community. On the > other hand, these things are sufficiently obvious that perhaps > nothing needs to be said about them. There is one area where > text might be useful. > > I'd feel more comfortable if we added text encouraging members > of the community with comments about decisions to make those > comments to the community at large and/or the IAOC even if > their comments did not meet the criteria for formal > review/appeal. > > > Sorry to run such a long chase and end up back mostly at > nothing. > > --Sam > > ___ > 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: Monday consensus text: #725 Appealing decisions
Harald, I still think this is a bad model, but I'm clearly (at least among those who are speaking up) in the minority on that. With one correction, and a last quibble, I think it is now at least consistent enough that, if it causes problems, we can get to the substance of them and fix it rather than getting tangled up with procedural quibbling. So I think we should go ahead. The correction: The last sentence should probably read "...may the IAB or ISOC BoT overturn...", since the IESG is not in the appeals chain. _The quibble_ (long, unfortunately, but I think worth understanding before we push forward). I expect this comment to be ignored in the rush to get the document out, and it can be fixed later if needed (and I imagine would be fixed after the first incident were one to occur), but want to get a concern on the record. One of the things with which a number of members of the community has been very concerned has been to prevent the ISOC BoT from meddling in the operations of the IASA. While I think other checks on them will prove adequate, I recognize a community concern when I see one. I don't see "review whether procedures were followed and, if not, send things back and tell them to review and reconsider their actions" to be significantly problematic on the "meddling" front, and that is all the authority the ISOC BoT has up to the beginning of that problematic last paragraph. But the last paragraph gives "the reviewing body" the authority to overturn IAOC decisions and requires consultation with the IAOC before doing so and the ISOC BoT is a reviewing body. Seriously paranoid scenario under the above model: The ISOC BoT takes a large overdose of drugs that induce a desire to go meddle in the IASA. On some pretense, one of their members or a designated stooge (all of whom are members of the community under our deliberately-vague rules) appeals an IAOC decision to the IAOC Chair, the IAB, and then to the ISOC BoT. The ISOC turns that "consultation" into a negotiation about decisions to possibly be overturned, procedural changes to be made in ways of doing things, etc., and we end up with a fairly full-scale license to meddle. I don't think this is likely to happen, but I don't like procedures that are subject to abuse when that opportunity can be easily avoided. Possible solution: permit _only_ the IAB to overturn a decision (exceptional circumstance, etc., text remains). If the ISOC BoT decides to reverse the IAB on an appeal, all they can do is what they are essentially restricted to doing under the standards process appeal chain: send the question back with instructions to reconsider. I think we can safely leave the question as to whether they send something back to the IAB or back directly to the IAOC up in the air. But giving them the authority, even under "exceptional circumstances", to reverse an IAOC decision, seems to me to violate the principles of separation that many people have felt strongly about. Of course, one could also fix this problem by losing the paragraph, but we have apparently decided against that. Finally, these little glitches (both the inclusion of "IESG" and the more complex question of principle, again point out the risks of trying to evolve a document this quickly. john --On Monday, 31 January, 2005 11:33 +0100 Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Most responses on the list have spoken in favour of leaving > the last section (overturn decisions) in; John pointed out > that it's completely unclear what the real rules for this type > of action is. And I still don't like it. > > Still - I think this is a text that is possible to live with. > > 3.5 Review and Appeal of IAD and IAOC Decision > > The IAOC is directly accountable to the IETF community for > the > performance of the IASA. In order to achieve this, the > IAOC and IAD > will ensure that guidelines are developed for regular > operational > decision making. Where appropriate, these guidelines > should be > developed with public input. In all cases, they must be > made public. >... > In exceptional cases, when no other recourse seems > reasonable, the > reviewing body may overturn or reverse a non-binding > decision or > action of the IAOC. This should be done after careful > consideration > and consultation with the IAOC regarding the > ramifications of this > action. In no circumstances may the IESG or IAB overturn > a decision of > the IAOC that involves a binding contract or overturn a > personnel- > related action (such as hiring, firing, promotion, > demotion, > performance reviews, salary adjustments, > etc.). > > Comments? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> Perhaps clarify: #825 - IASA responsibilities regarding IPR
Harld admits and thinks: > I'm sure Jorge could phrase it better. but I think the meaning > is clear. works for me Scott ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Perhaps clarify: #825 - IASA responsibilities regarding IPR
The IASA is responsible for managing all IPR, including but not limited to trademarks, domain names, and copyrights, that belongs to the IETF. It is responsible for undertaking any and all required actions on behalf of the IETF to obtain, protect and manage the rights that the IETF needs to carry out its work. This makes sense to me, and I agree with Bob that it is important to make it clear who will control and manage our intellectual property rights. Thanks, Margaret ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Monday consensus text: #725 Appealing decisions
This looks fine to me. Margaret At 11:33 AM +0100 1/31/05, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: Lots of commentary on this one, some principle-based, some pointing out where the text-as-written said something that was Obviously Wrong. I've tuned the text below to: - Removed the para about metrics. That's not part of this section. Could go under "IAD responsibilities". But I think they're not critical. - Go straight to the IAB on the appeals path. - Clarified that "do nothing but answer" is a valid option when responding - Changed "initiate work on changing the BCP" to "recommend to the comnunity that the BCPs should be changed" Most responses on the list have spoken in favour of leaving the last section (overturn decisions) in; John pointed out that it's completely unclear what the real rules for this type of action is. And I still don't like it. Still - I think this is a text that is possible to live with. 3.5 Review and Appeal of IAD and IAOC Decision The IAOC is directly accountable to the IETF community for the performance of the IASA. In order to achieve this, the IAOC and IAD will ensure that guidelines are developed for regular operational decision making. Where appropriate, these guidelines should be developed with public input. In all cases, they must be made public. In the case where someone questions whether a decision or action of the IAD or the IAOC has been undertaken in accordance with IETF BCPs or IASA operational guidelines (including the question of whether appropriate guidelines have been created or maintained), he or she may ask the IAOC for a formal review of the decision or action. The request for review is addressed to the IAOC chair and should include a description of the decision or action to be reviewed, an explanation of how, in the requestor's opinion, the decision or action violates the BCPs or operational guidelines, and a suggestion for how the situation could be rectified. All requests for review will be publicly posted, and the IAOC is expected to respond to these requests within a reasonable period, typically within 90 days. It is up to the IAOC to determine what type of review and response is required, based on the nature of the review request. Based on the results of the review, the IAOC may choose to overturn their own decision, change their operational guidelines to prevent further misunderstandings, take other action as appropriate, or just publish the review result and take no other action. If a member of the community is not satisfied with the IAOC's response to his or her review request, he or she may escalate the issue by appealing the decision or action to the IAB, using the appeals procedures outlined in RFC 2026 [RFC2026]. If he or she is not satisfied with the IAB response, he or she can escalate the issue to the ISOC Board of Trustees, as described in RFC 2026. The reviewing body (IAB or ISOC BoT) will review the decision of the IAD or IAOC to determine whether it was made in accordance with existing BCPs and operational guidelines. As a result of this review, the reviewing body may recommend to the community that the BCPs governing IAOC actions should be changed. It may also advise the IAOC to modify existing operational guidelines to avoid similar issues in the future and/or may advise the IAOC to re-consider their decision or action. It may also recommend that no action be taken based on the review. In exceptional cases, when no other recourse seems reasonable, the reviewing body may overturn or reverse a non-binding decision or action of the IAOC. This should be done after careful consideration and consultation with the IAOC regarding the ramifications of this action. In no circumstances may the IESG or IAB overturn a decision of the IAOC that involves a binding contract or overturn a personnel- related action (such as hiring, firing, promotion, demotion, performance reviews, salary adjustments, etc.). Comments? Harald ___ 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: Monday consensus text: #725 Appealing decisions
Harald asks: > Still - I think this is a text that is possible to live with. ... > Comments? too many words for my liking but I can live with it (and the reasons behind the last paragraph are important to me) Scott ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Perhaps clarify: #825 - IASA responsibilities regarding IPR
Based on some offline conversations, I've concluded that perhaps Bob Kahn's
message highlighted a point about the current (-05) language about IPR
handling: It is a little implicit.
The current text says:
3. Structure of the IASA
The IASA is responsible for undertaking any and all required actions
that involve trademarks on behalf of the IETF.
3.1 IAD responsibilities
If a contract entered into by ISOC on behalf of IASA and/or the IETF
(an "IASA Contract") provides for the creation, development,
modification or storage of any data (including, without limitation,
any data relating to IETF membership, documents, archives, mailing
lists, correspondence, financial records, personnel records and the
like) ("Data"), then the IAD shall ensure that such contract grants
to ISOC the perpetual, irrevocable right, on behalf of IASA and IETF,
to use, display, distribute, reproduce, modify and create derivatives
of such Data. ISOC will permit IASA and its designee(s) to have sole
control and custodianship of such Data, and ISOC will not utilize or
access such Data in connection with any ISOC function other than IETF
without the written consent of the IAD.
.
The IAD and IAOC are responsible for making all business decisions
regarding the IASA.
And in section 7 paragraph on "Removability":
To the extent allowed by law, any balance in the IASA accounts,
any IETF-specific intellectual property rights, and any
IETF-specific data and tools shall also transition to the new
entity.
I believe that these paragraphs paint a clear picture: The IETF wants the
IASA entity to be its manager for IPR.
But still - it is worth being perfectly clear here.
I suggest we change the text in section 3 from:
The IASA is responsible for undertaking any and all required actions
that involve trademarks on behalf of the IETF.
to:
The IASA is responsible for managing all IPR, including but not
limited to trademarks, domain names, and copyrights, that belongs
to the IETF. It is responsible for undertaking any and
all required actions on behalf of the IETF to obtain, protect and
manage the rights that the IETF needs to carry out its work.
I'm sure Jorge could phrase it better. but I think the meaning
is clear.
Harald
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Monday consensus text: #725 Appealing decisions
Lots of commentary on this one, some principle-based, some pointing out where the text-as-written said something that was Obviously Wrong. I've tuned the text below to: - Removed the para about metrics. That's not part of this section. Could go under "IAD responsibilities". But I think they're not critical. - Go straight to the IAB on the appeals path. - Clarified that "do nothing but answer" is a valid option when responding - Changed "initiate work on changing the BCP" to "recommend to the comnunity that the BCPs should be changed" Most responses on the list have spoken in favour of leaving the last section (overturn decisions) in; John pointed out that it's completely unclear what the real rules for this type of action is. And I still don't like it. Still - I think this is a text that is possible to live with. 3.5 Review and Appeal of IAD and IAOC Decision The IAOC is directly accountable to the IETF community for the performance of the IASA. In order to achieve this, the IAOC and IAD will ensure that guidelines are developed for regular operational decision making. Where appropriate, these guidelines should be developed with public input. In all cases, they must be made public. In the case where someone questions whether a decision or action of the IAD or the IAOC has been undertaken in accordance with IETF BCPs or IASA operational guidelines (including the question of whether appropriate guidelines have been created or maintained), he or she may ask the IAOC for a formal review of the decision or action. The request for review is addressed to the IAOC chair and should include a description of the decision or action to be reviewed, an explanation of how, in the requestor's opinion, the decision or action violates the BCPs or operational guidelines, and a suggestion for how the situation could be rectified. All requests for review will be publicly posted, and the IAOC is expected to respond to these requests within a reasonable period, typically within 90 days. It is up to the IAOC to determine what type of review and response is required, based on the nature of the review request. Based on the results of the review, the IAOC may choose to overturn their own decision, change their operational guidelines to prevent further misunderstandings, take other action as appropriate, or just publish the review result and take no other action. If a member of the community is not satisfied with the IAOC's response to his or her review request, he or she may escalate the issue by appealing the decision or action to the IAB, using the appeals procedures outlined in RFC 2026 [RFC2026]. If he or she is not satisfied with the IAB response, he or she can escalate the issue to the ISOC Board of Trustees, as described in RFC 2026. The reviewing body (IAB or ISOC BoT) will review the decision of the IAD or IAOC to determine whether it was made in accordance with existing BCPs and operational guidelines. As a result of this review, the reviewing body may recommend to the community that the BCPs governing IAOC actions should be changed. It may also advise the IAOC to modify existing operational guidelines to avoid similar issues in the future and/or may advise the IAOC to re-consider their decision or action. It may also recommend that no action be taken based on the review. In exceptional cases, when no other recourse seems reasonable, the reviewing body may overturn or reverse a non-binding decision or action of the IAOC. This should be done after careful consideration and consultation with the IAOC regarding the ramifications of this action. In no circumstances may the IESG or IAB overturn a decision of the IAOC that involves a binding contract or overturn a personnel- related action (such as hiring, firing, promotion, demotion, performance reviews, salary adjustments, etc.). Comments? Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: some pending IASA issues
Jefsey, at most other times, I would not have commented on this at all. Today, the day before we plan to cut the "final" version of this document, it seems appropriate to comment on why your "issues" should NOT be addressed. Remember always that the cost of text in the document is not about lines of text - it is about the organizational pain and suffering that comes from trying to fit actions to a maze of ill-thought-out random restrictions. That said. --On 29. januar 2005 12:43 +0100 "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I would like to rise a few points IRT the IASA effort. Keeping in mind that Members will have to adopt it and the world to trust it. 1. Transparence is of the essence: I would advise the Transition Team http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/adminrest/transteam page to be linked on the http://ietf.org main page. Important information such as the bios of the members (including corporate relations and geographical area) are missing. If you want to know more about these people, ask, and explain why. I'm not going to tell the TT members to waste time on writing bios rather than doing the work that is needed. The http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-05.txt current draft should be linked there. Go one level up. That's the main page. 2. ISOC is an international organization, yet there is no indication about relations with ISOC local chapters. For organizing local IETF lists, assisting with IETF meetings, documenting specific local issues when requested, encouraging regional workshops, meetings, shows, publications. This should be noted in a short paragraph to acknowledge national/regional contributions and support and to leave open any further suggestion/development. Cost: 3lines to be added. The IETF has never attempted to have an organization along geographical lines. ISOC has such an organization, but that bears no formal relationship with the standards process. This document is not about changing the standards process. 3. Regional representation. Most of the Internet organizations make sure their BoD is regionally distributed. This is not appropriate for a technical entity, however IAOC is an administrative body. I would suggest the Draft Section 4 to include a recommendation (not an obligation) that all the main parts of the world are represented at the IAOC. Cost: 2 lines to be added. The IAOC is an administrative body for a technical entity. So "not appropriate" applies. 4. multilingualism. There is no provision for Secretariat and Editor translations services, nor for the IAD command of languages. This is surprising in a 7260 languages world. I do not say the IAD is to speak many languages nor that publications are to be translated. But I definitely say that this question must be addressed with a policy statement. This statement could be that at the present time the multilingualism issue is not addressed, but should be included in a further global review of the Internet standard process to support a Multilingual Internet. Cost: 3 lines to be added. Not appropriate for this version. This organization is being set up to support the IETF that exists, not an IETF that might be. If you want to change the multilingualism policies of the IETF, try that. 5. stability/accountability. As long as decisions by the IAD can be questioned by anyone else than the IAOC and the IAOC may be accountable for its decisions one by one rather than for the respect of received directions, this will be subjective with an important risk of confusion. I suppose that O'Reilly may start publishing "ORCs" from the Drafts and the Internet may survive if the IETF is blocked by IASA-DoS? But is that what we want? I have no idea what you mean here. Most of the interpretations that come to mind are meaningless; the rest are covered within the "appeals" debate. 6. The IAD is supposed to be a solitary job. Has anyone considered : "I am the IAD, let me understand my job and organize my calendar. Even with 48 hours non stop a day, can I carry it all?". I feel there is a few points which are missing. For example, how can he ask guidance to the IETF, IAB or IESG? Is the guy entitled to vacations? What if he is sick: is a replacement to be hired? There are cost of life, salary level, productivity comparative tables. Did we consider them, when deciding where the IAD is to seat? Yes, we assume that the IAD is human. And we assume that the IAD knows where to find the people of the IESG and IAB, and use the IETF mailing lists as needed. This is in the category I call "too obvious to state". 7. IANA management. Right now the IANA support is delegated to ICANN by IETF (RFC 2860) on one hand, and by the USG on another hand, http://www.icann.org/general/iana-contract-09feb00.htm. This last contract is questioned by the USGAO http://www.gao.gov/new.items/og00033r.pdf and by other Govs on the same grounds. ICANN for some times tries to force another view which is "the IANA is an ICANN functio
Re: Mud. Clear as. Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5
Rather than losing these reasonable thoughts, I stuck them in the transition team Wiki under "IAOC Instructions". They will be remembered. Thanks, Sam! --On 27. januar 2005 22:44 -0500 Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think we are very close here. I can live with Margaret's text with Leslie's proposed changes. It's actually very close to something I would be happy with. I've been rethinking my position since yesterday. I realized that most of what I want does not require formalism or requires very little formalism. In particular, I'm happy to live with a system in which decisions are not overturned except by the IAOC (although I like In addition, I think requiring requests for appeal/review to be acted on when they are simply arguing that decision is bad instead of that decisions did not follow written procedures/rules would be open to abuse. Here is what I want in addition to Margaret's formulation. I want to see if I can get agreement on these (I suspect the answer will be yes) before working on text. IT may turn out that the BCP is the wrong place for such text. * The IAOC can choose to overturn or otherwise act to reverse a decision if it believes that is the best course of action to follow. Examples include changing procedures if they happen not to work very well or attempting to buy out or terminate a contract if it is clear that the contract is no longer in the IASA's best interest. * Members of the IAOC may take into account comments from the community and may decide to reconsider a decision based on such comments even if no formal requirement to review the decision or to respond to the comments exists. In other words if the community convinces the IAOC they were wrong, it is reasonable for the IAOC to go do something about it. * The IAOC should listen to comments. By this I mean that they should be aware of comments they are receiving and weight them according to their value. It's fine to ignore pointless comments; probably even fine to pay less attention to comments from people who have a track record of not providing useful input. It would not be desirable for the IAOC to have completely ignored a constructive, well-reasoned comment simply because there was no formal obligation to respond to the comment. (The IAOC still might not respond, but someone should have at least read the comment and considered what it said) * It is reasonable for individuals, groups or organized bodies to comment to the community and the IAOC on IAOC decisions. For example if the IAOC selected a meeting sight according to its criteria and the IESG noticed that many working group chairs and document authors were unwilling to come to this sight, it would be reasonable for the IESG to inform the IAOC of this observation. Depending on costs of canceling a meeting, it might (although probably would not) be reasonable for the IESG to ask the IAOC to reconsider. When I phrase things this way instead of in thinking about them in the context of formal appeals and reviews, they become stunningly obvious at least for me. If these things are not true, I don't think we are living up to an open transparent process receptive to the needs of the IETF community. On the other hand, these things are sufficiently obvious that perhaps nothing needs to be said about them. There is one area where text might be useful. I'd feel more comfortable if we added text encouraging members of the community with comments about decisions to make those comments to the community at large and/or the IAOC even if their comments did not meet the criteria for formal review/appeal. Sorry to run such a long chase and end up back mostly at nothing. --Sam ___ 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
