Re: 1601bis: The Charter of IAB
John C Klensin wrote: > My, my, do I love being quoted out of context on a comment that > was made four years ago, and was intended as humorous rather > than a serious comment on the process. Sorry, I was not aware that an email to an IETF WG list with a subject "The appeals process and the IAB" and starts with "... have discussed with a few people..." was intended as humorous. Anyway, let's agree to disagree: 1. I am strongly opposing the current 1601bis, but who cares anyway? There is no way to make an appeal, and therefore, I believe it is a WIN-WIN situation: most likely that charter will be approved, and I will save ISOC membership fee. 2. I have no problem with the informality at the WG and IESG level, including sending humorous emails to a list :^). However, I believe that the IAB serves as a shim between that informality and its formal umbrella organization (ISOC). 3. I believe that the IESG is doing fine at its level except it should stop signing treaties and MoUs with other organizations. But, I do not believe that the IESG needs a super-IESG (i.e. the current IAB) for technical oversight purpose. Even if the IESG needs one, an expert advisory panel could sever that purpose. 4. I believe that the IAB should deal with things that the IESG is not interested anyway, including to deal with the formality of the *REAL* community. 5. Case closed. regrets, -- - Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim -- VLSM-TJT -- http://rms46.vlsm.org/ - - Always select ShutDown from the StartMenu - M$Windows after crash
Re: 1601bis: The Charter of IAB
--On Saturday, 12 February, 2000 14:40 +0800 "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I also believe what Klensin wrote is still valid: > > .. > > > [... 22 Feb 1996 ... skipping voting out of existence, fine > lunches and dinners, and irresolvable controversy > pronouncements...] My, my, do I love being quoted out of context on a comment that was made four years ago, and was intended as humorous rather than a serious comment on the process. I don't remember the comment or its context, but strongly suspect from the partial sentence excerpt that it was _never_ "valid" except as a sarcastic and/or cynical remark, made in passing and intended to mean the opposite. Rahmat, this is one of the difficulties with the path you seem to want us to go down. Except when formally hearing an appeal and, possibly in a very small number of other cases (I can't identify any at the moment, but don't want to get into a nit-picking argument with you about whether they exist), the IAB isn't a formal deliberative body. And, even when we face those more formal situations, we are not, as we pointed out recently in another context, a court of law and will not try to behave like one. Instead, we operate very informally, as a collection of people trying to collectively understand issues and help the IETF move forward. All of those people bring strong technical skills and experience to the table, rather than being professional or amateur lawyers or the like. If you don't like the composition of the IAB in terms of the individual profiles and personalities, that is a Nomcom issue, not a charter or procedural one. In working informally --with each other and with the IETF participant community (especially those who are making technical contributions)-- we also tend to be human. Under stress, some of us even become cynical or engage, informally, in what we call in the US "black humor". So, as you must know, do several other professional population groups: this shouldn't be any surprise or cause for concern. But that informal process is precisely what permits us to work as a team, in spite of different backgrounds and perspectives, and quite often come up with results that are clearer and better than any of us could have produced alone. Tying us up in procedures, or requirements that we expose and document every word spoken or written, would, at a minimum, cripple our ability to get anything done. That would, of cousre, prevent our doing harm by preventing our doing anything, but I, at least, don't see that as in the best interests of the IETF or the Internet generally. I think those of us who have been following your notes over the last few years understand your concerns but generally do not agree. As, I believe (haven't checked), the only member of the current or upcoming IAB with significant professional training in the social and behavioral sciences, I am probably more sympathetic than most to your desire for a clear historical record. But --precisely because I continue to be interested in the interactions between process, formal procedures, and results-- I don't think it is productive in this case, especially to what, IMO, is the extreme to which you want to take things. More specifically, I would personally prefer to avoid turning the IETF, or any of the related or subsidiary structures, into an experiment in political theory or utopianism (mine or anyone else's). With regard to your substantive comments about appeals and jury processes... The reality is that all of the appeals that have reached the IAB within my memory have involved significant and often complex technical components, typically including questions of whether WG, WG Chair, or IESG decisions on a particular issue were reasonable in the light of some technical argument. They haven't been exclusively procedural, or exclusively technical, but a inseparable mix of the two.In the "outside world", the historical experience with randomly-chosen juries in that type of situation has been fairly terrible. That is not surprising: if one doesn't understand the issues but is forced to make a decision, one decides on some other basis. It is also well-known that, if the randomly-chosen members of the jury can be educated about the issues, then results get better: but that is a time-consuming process and can easily lead to claims about the biases of the educators who must, recursively, be selected and/or monitored by some process that reduces or eliminates those concerns. Now, if we were dealing with exclusively procedural appeals, I would agree with you that an independently-selected appeals body, one that could deal with conflicting claims about what had occurred on an adversarial and evidentary basis, would be a better and more convenient idea. I actually suggested that a few years ago, possib
Re: 1601bis: The Charter of IAB
Brian E Carpenter wrote: > I can read your words, but I really can't understand your concerns. > You seem to be worrying about dragons that I can't see. Happy New > Year, anyway. Hm... your reply is exactly my concern! Your answer is just based on "can not understand" and not based on any document or past history. Therefore, I would like to see more things in written. Is this by the way how the board in handling appeals? Who is the current IANA and RFC-Ed (chair/head/whatever)? I also believe what Klensin wrote is still valid: .. [... 22 Feb 1996 ... skipping voting out of existence, fine lunches and dinners, and irresolvable controversy pronouncements...] For questions of process, there is really a jury problem, not a technical or architectural expertise one. The IAB membership may have no special competence to make decisions on process matters and, if they were involved in the initial proposals in any way, they may be contaminated relative to making fair choices. I suggest that, for process questions, the right appeals body is a jury-like group that is chosen exactly the way the Nomcomm is chosen -- volunteers from the IETF participant pool and then at random, with no sitting IAB or IESG (or, I'd think, ISOC Trustees) members permitted to volunteer. I don't have an opinion as to whether we pick an appeals panel for a year just in case we need them or pick them only when a sufficient process appeal arises. It is not clear to me that it makes much difference -- except that, if they were picked on demand, we might just take the attendance list from the last few meetings and draw people from it on an "attendance subjects one to the risk on volunteering" basis. That has some drawbacks but some appeal. For the technical error questions, it is still not clear to me that IAB is the right appeals body, especially if they were active in formulating the position under appeal or an alternate to it. A randomly-chosen jury might still work, but might well not have the right technical expertise. As one possibility, we could move toward a formalized blue-ribbon review and mediation panel, with members of that panel being chosen by IESG, the WG leadership, and the individual or group launching the appeal. If it was appropriate to populate that panel with IAB members, that would be fine, but the review itself would not be an IAB responsibility. If the panel didn't behave fairly, that becomes a procedural question, and the appeals board outlined above takes over. It seems that the only thing that I can do is keeping records on who's who were on the board (+when), plus who were the nomcom who had elected them. Let the Vulcans, Klingons, and Ferengis make the final judgements in the next millennium. tabe, -- - Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim -- VLSM-TJT -- http://rms46.vlsm.org/ - - Always select ShutDown from the StartMenu - M$Windows after crash
Re: 1601bis: The Charter of IAB
Hi Rahmat, I can read your words, but I really can't understand your concerns. You seem to be worrying about dragons that I can't see. Happy New Year, anyway. Brian "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" wrote: > > Hello: > > Thank you for you reply and your valuable time. This following > is "LONG" (as it is now the dragon year :-). You might want > to hit d(delete) now, or adjust your procmail configuration. > > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > >>> Files can be obtained via > >>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-iab-rfc1601bis-02.txt > > >> 1. Why should the IESG approve the charter? Why not the ISOC? > > > Because this is an IETF document defining the charter of an > > IETF committee. > > Oh, I see... first of all, I have no problem that the IESG > is the one in charge of giving each BCP a "sequence" number. > However, letting the IESG approve its "appealing body" charter > might be a little bit complicated. > > Borrowing Li's term, a BCP is something that is: > > "accepted by the IETF, and by God, > this is how we're gonna do things". > > > In my understanding, therefore, a BCP should be more than > just accepted by the IETF. Furthermore, the first charter > of IAB was introduced in a different way: > > > Subject: Draft IAB charter as part of ISOC > From: Lyman Chapin > Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 > > [...] Before I present the charter to the ISOC board, > I would like to hear from any of you who may have comments > on the draft. Incorporation of the IAB into the ISOC brings > the IESG, IETF, and all of the other "pieces" into the ISOC > as well, so please read the proposed charter carefully, > and feel free to comment either directly to me or to the > IAB and/or IETF as a whole. > > [... see also RFC-1358 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1358.txt ] > . > > And so was RFC-1602 ( http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1602.txt ) > > . > Notice > > [...] This document is provisional, pending legal review >and concurrence of the Internet Society Trustees. [...] > . > > See also the minutes DRAFT of POISED95 WG, Los Angeles, > 4 & 5 March 1996: > >.. >Minutes: Bob Steen >Chair:Erik Huizer > >Overall Document Issues. > >All three documents need to be accepted by the ISOC BoT. >They will be given last call at the IETF level and then sent >with a letter to the ISOC BoT. > >(... this following is extra ...) >There was a short discussion on whether or not the Poised96 >should try to find out what is wrong with the process and >examine the IAB, IETF, IRTF Roles What's wrong? What's not? >The goal being to make a broad recommendation to fix these >problems. After discussion, this was dropped as unworkable. >... > > So, what is the problem of clarifying who reviews the IAB > charter, and how it is going to be modified? Basically, > the IESG should concentrate with IETF's "core business", > and get rid (=out source) whatever the IESG is not > interested to do in the first place. > > >> 2. There is no clear statement about the relationship between > >>ISOC and IAB. Why? > > > The following seems clear enough to me: > > >The IAB acts as a source of advice and guidance to the Board of > >Trustees and Officers of the Internet Society concerning technical, > >architectural, procedural, and (where appropriate) policy matters > >pertaining to the Internet and its enabling technologies. > > Why? What for? It is about time for the IAB to understand how > important it is -- as an "appeal body", and not as a "super IESG". > The IAB is needed for maintaining the integrity of the IETF, > and to make sure that the IESG does what it supposed to do. > I have no idea (due to the poor documentation) whether the IESG > is really listen to the IAB when approving a new WG. > > The ISOC is needed just like a monarchy needs a "king" or "queen" > but nothing else. The ISOC is needed to approve the IAB charter, > to appoint a NomCom chair, providing legal protections, > perhaps as a supreme appeal body, etc. > > Even being an "appeal body" can be delegated to a NOMCOM like > (or jury like) committee. But, the IAB should make sure that > the appeal body proceed as it supposed to do. > > >> Enclosed is my suggested framework of 1601bis > > > I don't see any items in your framework that are both appropriate to > > include in the charter and not included in the existing draft. > > Still not clear? Basically, I would like to suggest to put > back point #5
Re: 1601bis: The Charter of IAB
Hello: Thank you for you reply and your valuable time. This following is "LONG" (as it is now the dragon year :-). You might want to hit d(delete) now, or adjust your procmail configuration. Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>> Files can be obtained via >>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-iab-rfc1601bis-02.txt >> 1. Why should the IESG approve the charter? Why not the ISOC? > Because this is an IETF document defining the charter of an > IETF committee. Oh, I see... first of all, I have no problem that the IESG is the one in charge of giving each BCP a "sequence" number. However, letting the IESG approve its "appealing body" charter might be a little bit complicated. Borrowing Li's term, a BCP is something that is: "accepted by the IETF, and by God, this is how we're gonna do things". In my understanding, therefore, a BCP should be more than just accepted by the IETF. Furthermore, the first charter of IAB was introduced in a different way: Subject: Draft IAB charter as part of ISOC From: Lyman Chapin Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 [...] Before I present the charter to the ISOC board, I would like to hear from any of you who may have comments on the draft. Incorporation of the IAB into the ISOC brings the IESG, IETF, and all of the other "pieces" into the ISOC as well, so please read the proposed charter carefully, and feel free to comment either directly to me or to the IAB and/or IETF as a whole. [... see also RFC-1358 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1358.txt ] . And so was RFC-1602 ( http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1602.txt ) . Notice [...] This document is provisional, pending legal review and concurrence of the Internet Society Trustees. [...] . See also the minutes DRAFT of POISED95 WG, Los Angeles, 4 & 5 March 1996: .. Minutes: Bob Steen Chair:Erik Huizer Overall Document Issues. All three documents need to be accepted by the ISOC BoT. They will be given last call at the IETF level and then sent with a letter to the ISOC BoT. (... this following is extra ...) There was a short discussion on whether or not the Poised96 should try to find out what is wrong with the process and examine the IAB, IETF, IRTF Roles What's wrong? What's not? The goal being to make a broad recommendation to fix these problems. After discussion, this was dropped as unworkable. ... So, what is the problem of clarifying who reviews the IAB charter, and how it is going to be modified? Basically, the IESG should concentrate with IETF's "core business", and get rid (=out source) whatever the IESG is not interested to do in the first place. >> 2. There is no clear statement about the relationship between >>ISOC and IAB. Why? > The following seems clear enough to me: >The IAB acts as a source of advice and guidance to the Board of >Trustees and Officers of the Internet Society concerning technical, >architectural, procedural, and (where appropriate) policy matters >pertaining to the Internet and its enabling technologies. Why? What for? It is about time for the IAB to understand how important it is -- as an "appeal body", and not as a "super IESG". The IAB is needed for maintaining the integrity of the IETF, and to make sure that the IESG does what it supposed to do. I have no idea (due to the poor documentation) whether the IESG is really listen to the IAB when approving a new WG. The ISOC is needed just like a monarchy needs a "king" or "queen" but nothing else. The ISOC is needed to approve the IAB charter, to appoint a NomCom chair, providing legal protections, perhaps as a supreme appeal body, etc. Even being an "appeal body" can be delegated to a NOMCOM like (or jury like) committee. But, the IAB should make sure that the appeal body proceed as it supposed to do. >> Enclosed is my suggested framework of 1601bis > I don't see any items in your framework that are both appropriate to > include in the charter and not included in the existing draft. Still not clear? Basically, I would like to suggest to put back point #5 and especially point #6 of RFC 1160 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1160.txt) .. The IAB performs the following functions: 1) Sets Internet Standards, 2) Manages the RFC publication process, 3) Reviews the operation of the IETF and IRTF, 4) Performs strategic planning for the Internet, identifying long-range problems
Re: 1601bis: The Charter of IAB
Rahmat, "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" wrote: > > To Whom It May Concern > > Re: Last Call: Charter of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) to BCP > > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and > > solicits final comments on this action. Please send any > > comments to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing lists > > by February 9, 2000. > > > Files can be obtained via > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-iab-rfc1601bis-02.txt > > General > > 1. Why should the IESG approve the charter? Why not the ISOC? Because this is an IETF document defining the charter of an IETF committee. > 2. There is no clear statement about the relationship between >ISOC and IAB. Why? The following seems clear enough to me: The IAB acts as a source of advice and guidance to the Board of Trustees and Officers of the Internet Society concerning technical, architectural, procedural, and (where appropriate) policy matters pertaining to the Internet and its enabling technologies. If necessary the IAB may convene panels of knowledgeable people, hold hearings, and otherwise pursue the investigation of specific questions or topics presented to it by the Internet Society. > 3. There is no clear statement about relationship with RFC-Editor, >IESG, IETF-Sec, IANA, and ICANN. Why? On the contrary, relations with the RFC-Ed, IESG, and IANA are described explicitly. There is no particular relationship with the IETF Secretariat and no formal relationship whatever with ICANN, so on those two there is nothing to describe. > > Accountability > > 4. As the community is not only exclusively the IETF anymore, >what does really "on behalf of the Internet Community" mean? This phrase does not occur in the draft. >What measurement will be used? If the IETF doesn't like the job we do, they have recourse under BCP 10. >Will the IAB publish at least >an annual "progress report"? That might be a good idea if we had the time, but it is not something to put in a charter. > What/Where is the replacement of >what IAB previously reported in the IMR? All the information previously supplied in the IMR is now available on the IETF and/or RFC Editor web sites. > > 5. How will the IAB implement "own choosing" of BCP-9: >"The IAB shall then review the situation and attempt to resolve >it in a manner of its OWN CHOOSING." These words are not in the draft we are discussing. >See also BCP-9: >6.5 Conflict Resolution and Appeals >6.5.1 Working Group Disputes >6.5.2 Process Failures >6.5.3 Questions of Applicable Procedure >See also BCP-11: >3.6 Internet Architecture Board >3.7 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority I fail to see the relevance of this list to the document we are discussing. > 6. What should the IAB/ISOC do, if the IESG signs a treaty without >having a Last Call? I fail to see why this question is relevant to the document we are discussing > --- > > Enclosed is my suggested framework of 1601bis I don't see any items in your framework that are both appropriate to include in the charter and not included in the existing draft. Brian
1601bis: The Charter of IAB
To Whom It May Concern Re: Last Call: Charter of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) to BCP > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and > solicits final comments on this action. Please send any > comments to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing lists > by February 9, 2000. > Files can be obtained via > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-iab-rfc1601bis-02.txt General 1. Why should the IESG approve the charter? Why not the ISOC? 2. There is no clear statement about the relationship between ISOC and IAB. Why? 3. There is no clear statement about relationship with RFC-Editor, IESG, IETF-Sec, IANA, and ICANN. Why? Accountability 4. As the community is not only exclusively the IETF anymore, what does really "on behalf of the Internet Community" mean? What measurement will be used? Will the IAB publish at least an annual "progress report"? What/Where is the replacement of what IAB previously reported in the IMR? 5. How will the IAB implement "own choosing" of BCP-9: "The IAB shall then review the situation and attempt to resolve it in a manner of its OWN CHOOSING." See also BCP-9: 6.5 Conflict Resolution and Appeals 6.5.1 Working Group Disputes 6.5.2 Process Failures 6.5.3 Questions of Applicable Procedure See also BCP-11: 3.6 Internet Architecture Board 3.7 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority 6. What should the IAB/ISOC do, if the IESG signs a treaty without having a Last Call? --- Enclosed is my suggested framework of 1601bis #include 1. The Role of the IAB - a brief description of the IAB * why it is chartered * by whom * for what * some other brief blah-blah-blahs. 2. Organizational Issues 2.1 The IAB chair 2.2 The ExecDir 2.3 The Current Task Forces (Arm?) - IRTF - IETF 2.4 Voting Rule 2.5 Archiving - directory: announcement, appeal, minutes - prior cases: e.g. Crocker vs. IESG(1995), Simpson vs. IESG(1999). - hall of fame: prior IAB members, etc. - who is the holder of zone iab.org, iana.org, ietf.org, and rfc-editors.org ? - etc. 2.6 The IAB Charter - who should approve this charter and its changes? the ISOC? the ISOC BOT? the IETF plenary? - how? 2.7 IAB Liability - any specific liability and insurance? 2.8 Funding - who will pay this activity? - who cares the accountability of all fundings? 2.9 Openness and Confidentiality - same as current 1601bis 3. IAB Membership and Selection 3.1 General - serve as individuals, non vendor's constituencies, but what about the liaisons and the Ex-Officios? 3.2 Fully Voting Members - 6/6 members for 2 years, see BCP-10. 3.3 IESG/IETF Chair - vote except for IESG related issues, appeals, et.al. 3.4 Ex-Officio Members - can be held by voting members - IRTF chair - IAB ExecDir 3.5 Liaisons - can not be held by voting members - Internet Society - RFC-Editor - IESG 4. The Role of the IAB in more detail 4.1 IESG Appointment - follow BCP-10 - should have a separated charter 4.4 IRTF chair Appointment - follow BCP-8 4.2 RFC Series - its Appointment? - should have a separated charter - no free lunch lah, someone has to pay this expensive activity, but who? 4.3 IANA - its Appointment? - how is this related with ICANN? - who pays for this? 4.4 Appeal Process - openness - do the the party have to pay the plenary attending fee? - can it be done electronically, by email, chat, teleconference? - who will be to underwriter of this potential expensive activity? - how and who will handle an appeal to the IAB itself? 4.5 Appointing Liaisons - liaison to the IETF? - liaison to the ISOC? - liaison to ICANN PSO? 4.6 Organizing Ad-Hoc Committees 4.7 Signing Treaties - don't let the IESG sign treaties and MoUs, including IPR licenses. 4.8 General Oversight - advice to the ISOC - advice to the IESG re. BOF, charting new WGs. * Perhaps BCP-25 should deleted the term "advice from the IAB" in which the IESG is perhaps not interested anyway? replace it with an ordinary "WG creating Last Call"? - how to solicit input from the community - how to inform the community 4.10 Accountability Oversight - who is taking care the funding of RFC-ed, IANA, and IETF-sec? - how to audit it? 4.11 Resolve issues which can not be treated within the IETF/IRTF - this point was in RFC 1160, but disappeared after - let the IESG to do want it want to do, and let the IAB do what the IESG does do anyway (e.g. handling RFC-2050/BCP-12). - who is taking care of the IETF-SEC budget and accountability? 5. Differences and Brief Historical Backgrounds - compared with the prior Charter - refer to RFC-1160 for historical details 6. Acknowledgments - inclu
