Re: ASCII diff of ISOC-proposed changes to BCP
At 7:03 AM -0500 2/11/05, Margaret Wasserman wrote: Hi Dave, snip But, to a corporate lawyer, the word control doesn't seem to mean all of the stuff that I listed in the first paragraph... All of that stuff falls under the term management. Control of an organization equates to ownership and/or fiduciary responsibility. Margaret, In support of your interpretation, it's worth pointing out that in U.S. corporate management structures, the Controller is An officer who audits accounts and supervises the financial affairs of a corporation or of a governmental body. - Lyman ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: ASCII diff of ISOC-proposed changes to BCP
Lynn - can you get the Skadden Arps lawyer to either defend or modify his sentence? It just looks too ungrammatical to escape comment and the RFC Editor is sure to try to fix it too. Harald --On onsdag, februar 16, 2005 02:44:34 -0500 Rob Austein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At Thu, 10 Feb 2005 06:59:20 -0500, Margaret Wasserman wrote: According to my local dictionary, bestween isn't even a word. The MS-Word copy that Lynn circulated uses the word between here, so this is a typo in the ASCII diff. I am doubtful that As between, the IETF, IASA and ISOC, the IETF, through IASA, shall have... is not standard grammar, legal or otherwise. Could we ask the lawyer if something was lost in translation somwhere? Or, perhaps there is a more conventional way to say this that would also meet with legal approval? For reference, the complete text in question is: 7. As between, the IETF, IASA and ISOC, the IETF, through the IASA, shall have a perpetual right to use, display, distribute, reproduce, modify and create derivatives of all software and data created in support of IETF activities. and the change from -06 to -07 was the addition of the prefix As between, the IETF, IASA and ISOC,. I'd like to second Margaret's request. While I'm certainly not a lawyer, I am reasonably confident that I understand both grammer and punctuation for the major dialects of English, and I'm pretty sure that the new text simply does not parse. For all I know it's flawless Early High Canal Martian, but IETF documents are supposed to be written in English, and this new text is not. Ordinarily I'd consider this a purely editorial issue, but since the text in question was dictated by a lawyer: Lynn (or Harald, or somebody) could you please either get ISOC's lawyer to rephrase the new text in the vernacular or let us revert to the -06 version of this paragraph? In view of Harald's ticking clock: I have no problem with treating this as an editorial issue if ISOC's lawyer tells us that's all it is. If this was intended to be a substantive change, we need an explanation for what it was supposed to mean. Last, for those wondering how one of the document editors could be puzzled by text that ended up in the document: even editors take time off, at least this one does, when it's ski season. Thanks! ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: ASCII diff of ISOC-proposed changes to BCP
At Thu, 10 Feb 2005 06:59:20 -0500, Margaret Wasserman wrote: According to my local dictionary, bestween isn't even a word. The MS-Word copy that Lynn circulated uses the word between here, so this is a typo in the ASCII diff. I am doubtful that As between, the IETF, IASA and ISOC, the IETF, through IASA, shall have... is not standard grammar, legal or otherwise. Could we ask the lawyer if something was lost in translation somwhere? Or, perhaps there is a more conventional way to say this that would also meet with legal approval? For reference, the complete text in question is: 7. As between, the IETF, IASA and ISOC, the IETF, through the IASA, shall have a perpetual right to use, display, distribute, reproduce, modify and create derivatives of all software and data created in support of IETF activities. and the change from -06 to -07 was the addition of the prefix As between, the IETF, IASA and ISOC,. I'd like to second Margaret's request. While I'm certainly not a lawyer, I am reasonably confident that I understand both grammer and punctuation for the major dialects of English, and I'm pretty sure that the new text simply does not parse. For all I know it's flawless Early High Canal Martian, but IETF documents are supposed to be written in English, and this new text is not. Ordinarily I'd consider this a purely editorial issue, but since the text in question was dictated by a lawyer: Lynn (or Harald, or somebody) could you please either get ISOC's lawyer to rephrase the new text in the vernacular or let us revert to the -06 version of this paragraph? In view of Harald's ticking clock: I have no problem with treating this as an editorial issue if ISOC's lawyer tells us that's all it is. If this was intended to be a substantive change, we need an explanation for what it was supposed to mean. Last, for those wondering how one of the document editors could be puzzled by text that ended up in the document: even editors take time off, at least this one does, when it's ski season. Thanks! ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Controlled vs Managed (Re: ASCII diff of ISOC-proposed changes to BCP)
Leslie, Where in the body of the document does it say that the IAOC is independent of ISOC. This could have been clarified but was not. I believe it needs to be explicit. bob At 01:10 PM 2/14/2005, Leslie Daigle wrote: Bob, My point was that the abstract text should not be at odds with the body of the document, or otherwise be misleading. The important aspects of the definition of the IAOC and its relationship to the IASA and ISOC are contained in the body of the document. Leslie. Bob Kahn wrote: Leslie, If the IAOC is intended to provide oversight of the activities and actions of ISOC with respect to IETF related matters in the future, then the IAOC will need to be independent of ISOC, otherwise the IAOC cannot be an effective oversight body. You might as well have ISOC be directly responsible for overseeing these activities. Further, it makes little sense for IAOC, as trustee for IETF IPR, to negotiate licenses with ISOC if it is indeed a part of ISOC. There needs to be a clear and clean separation here. Finally, the issue of managed vs controlled is hardly a small matter. It is basic and fundamental. If IETF wants to be in charge, they should take steps to assure that. As it is, all that would be happening, in the guise of putting IETF in charge, would be to put ISOC in charge, even if ISOC was willing to take guidance from the IAOC. In the language below, this now comes down to what is meant by housed in this context. Clarity is needed on this important point . For example: This document describes the structure of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) as an [delete] activity housed within the Internet Society (ISOC). [new] The IASA has two constituent elements: IAD and IAOC. As an employee of ISOC, the activities of the IAD will be subject to ISOC supervision; however, the IAOC serves as and independent oversight body on behalf of the IETF, and, as such, will not be subject to ISOC control. The IETF would control the IAOC, not ISOC. It is essential not to be ambiguous here.. bob At 11:15 AM 2/11/2005, Leslie Daigle wrote: For myself, I find the arguments on both sides of controlled and managed to be compelling -- perhaps because I am not a lawyer. However, I am conscious that the words we write down are scrutinized and used by people the world over -- not always to our benefit, and often without any of the context that caused us to write them [*]. So, if the token really doesn't mean anything (per Jorge) because the import is in the text of the document, perhaps the right answer is to just *drop* that clause. This document describes the structure of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) as an [delete] activity housed within the Internet Society (ISOC). That makes the entire abstract: This document describes the structure of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) as an activity housed within the Internet Society (ISOC). It defines the roles and responsibilities of the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC), the IETF Administrative Director (IAD), and ISOC in the fiscal and administrative support of the IETF standards process. It also defines the membership and selection rules for the IAOC. I think this is still clear about where responsibilities lie; the document defines them in more detail; there is less possibility for misconception (by using either controlled or managed, depending on your perspective). Leslie. [*] A specific example, in a contribution to ITU re. e164.arpa: As can be seen from: http://www.iana.org/arpa-dom/e164.htm the domain e164.arpa is delegated to: Internet Architecture Board (IAB) c/o IETF Secretariat Corporation for National Research Initiatives (CNRI) 1895 Preston White Drive Suite 100 Reston, Virginia 20191-5434 The IAB has no legal personality of its own, nor does the IETF. So it would appear that the legal entity which can control changes to the entries under e164.arpa is the Corporation for National Research Initiatives (CNRI). The whois entry is written this way because the IAB has no (other) mailing address. It does *not* mean that CNRI is in control of the e164.arpa domain, but that's what this expression apparently means to people. It's this sort of thing that leads me to (personally) prefer the use of the term controlled, if we're going to use a term. But, if that term introduces misconceptions on the legal side, I'd rather just drop the whole thing. Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: --On 11. februar 2005 07:03 -0500 Margaret Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, with my ISOC Board hat on (a hat which none of the ISOC Board members are legally allowed to take off), I am not inclined to ignore legal advice from ISOC's corporate counsel. Maybe the IETF Chair could ask the IETF lawyer (Jorge) whether changing the word from controlled to managed has any bad legal implications for the IETF? I asked Jorge, and here's what he said: this is a
Re: Controlled vs Managed (Re: ASCII diff of ISOC-proposed changes to BCP)
Leslie, If the IAOC is intended to provide oversight of the activities and actions of ISOC with respect to IETF related matters in the future, then the IAOC will need to be independent of ISOC, otherwise the IAOC cannot be an effective oversight body. You might as well have ISOC be directly responsible for overseeing these activities. Further, it makes little sense for IAOC, as trustee for IETF IPR, to negotiate licenses with ISOC if it is indeed a part of ISOC. There needs to be a clear and clean separation here. Finally, the issue of managed vs controlled is hardly a small matter. It is basic and fundamental. If IETF wants to be in charge, they should take steps to assure that. As it is, all that would be happening, in the guise of putting IETF in charge, would be to put ISOC in charge, even if ISOC was willing to take guidance from the IAOC. In the language below, this now comes down to what is meant by housed in this context. Clarity is needed on this important point . For example: This document describes the structure of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) as an [delete] activity housed within the Internet Society (ISOC). [new] The IASA has two constituent elements: IAD and IAOC. As an employee of ISOC, the activities of the IAD will be subject to ISOC supervision; however, the IAOC serves as and independent oversight body on behalf of the IETF, and, as such, will not be subject to ISOC control. The IETF would control the IAOC, not ISOC. It is essential not to be ambiguous here.. bob At 11:15 AM 2/11/2005, Leslie Daigle wrote: For myself, I find the arguments on both sides of controlled and managed to be compelling -- perhaps because I am not a lawyer. However, I am conscious that the words we write down are scrutinized and used by people the world over -- not always to our benefit, and often without any of the context that caused us to write them [*]. So, if the token really doesn't mean anything (per Jorge) because the import is in the text of the document, perhaps the right answer is to just *drop* that clause. This document describes the structure of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) as an [delete] activity housed within the Internet Society (ISOC). That makes the entire abstract: This document describes the structure of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) as an activity housed within the Internet Society (ISOC). It defines the roles and responsibilities of the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC), the IETF Administrative Director (IAD), and ISOC in the fiscal and administrative support of the IETF standards process. It also defines the membership and selection rules for the IAOC. I think this is still clear about where responsibilities lie; the document defines them in more detail; there is less possibility for misconception (by using either controlled or managed, depending on your perspective). Leslie. [*] A specific example, in a contribution to ITU re. e164.arpa: As can be seen from: http://www.iana.org/arpa-dom/e164.htm the domain e164.arpa is delegated to: Internet Architecture Board (IAB) c/o IETF Secretariat Corporation for National Research Initiatives (CNRI) 1895 Preston White Drive Suite 100 Reston, Virginia 20191-5434 The IAB has no legal personality of its own, nor does the IETF. So it would appear that the legal entity which can control changes to the entries under e164.arpa is the Corporation for National Research Initiatives (CNRI). The whois entry is written this way because the IAB has no (other) mailing address. It does *not* mean that CNRI is in control of the e164.arpa domain, but that's what this expression apparently means to people. It's this sort of thing that leads me to (personally) prefer the use of the term controlled, if we're going to use a term. But, if that term introduces misconceptions on the legal side, I'd rather just drop the whole thing. Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: --On 11. februar 2005 07:03 -0500 Margaret Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, with my ISOC Board hat on (a hat which none of the ISOC Board members are legally allowed to take off), I am not inclined to ignore legal advice from ISOC's corporate counsel. Maybe the IETF Chair could ask the IETF lawyer (Jorge) whether changing the word from controlled to managed has any bad legal implications for the IETF? I asked Jorge, and here's what he said: this is a political point rather than a legal one. The precise nature of the control/management is described elsewhere, so this is just a characterization rather than operative (executable) language. So based on that advice, I'm not inclined to make a fuss over the term. but somewhat surprised that ISOC's lawyer thinks it's fuss-worthy. Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: ASCII diff of ISOC-proposed changes to BCP
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 09:56:22 -0800, Ted Hardie wrote: ISOC has proposed this: This document describes the structure of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) as an IETF-managed activity housed within the Internet Society (ISOC). to replace this: This document describes the structure of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) as an IETF-controlled activity housed within the Internet Society (ISOC) legal umbrella. Speaking personally, I strongly prefer controlled to managed, and I believe that the formulations we've used up to now intended the under ISOC's wing view that IETF-controlled implies. Changing it weakens a formulation that is core to the community consensus that we've built over time, and I don't think it is a good idea. IETF-managed means that it is managed by the IETF? Yet isn't that exactly what it is NOT. It is an IETF activity, managed by an ISOC employee. Or maybe the real is really is about control? One thing that is likely is that a negotiation that involves this degree of disparity of language also involves strategic disparities between the two groups doing the negotiating. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: ASCII diff of ISOC-proposed changes to BCP
Hi Dave, Sitting on both sides of this particular fence, I actually _don't_ think that we have a strategic disagreement about who would control (using that term in it's normal English sense) this activity. The document is very clear that the IETF makes the rules about how the IASA will work (this BCP, for example), the IETF chooses 3/4 of the people who will run the IASA (the IAOC), the IAOC selects and hires the IAD, the IAOC and IAD to determine the policies, goals, budget, priorities and relationships of the IASA, _AND_ the IETF can move this function to a different corporate home if the IETF ever decides that is a good idea. The ISOC Board will have to approve some of those things (as indicated in this document and other IETF process documents), but the IETF is in the driver's seat. Now, personally, I don't have a strong feeling about whether the word controlled or managed is used in the abstract. I wrote the original text that is under discussion, and I don't personally believe that either word runs counter to what I said in the first paragraph of this message, nor do I believe that either word can fully capture what I said in that paragraph. It is the job of the entire document to capture the relationship, and I'm not at all concerned about people who just read the abstract to decide how a complex function is supposed to work. But, to a corporate lawyer, the word control doesn't seem to mean all of the stuff that I listed in the first paragraph... All of that stuff falls under the term management. Control of an organization equates to ownership and/or fiduciary responsibility. If I'm understanding this correctly (which I may not be), it isn't possible for the Board to give up control (in a legal sense) of any ISOC-housed activity. We can allow the activity to be completely managed by the IETF, but we are still responsible for the activity, and we have a fiduciary responsibility to understand the activity well-enough to know that it is being run legally and in a way that is consistent with ISOC's legal and tax status, etc. So, with my ISOC Board hat on (a hat which none of the ISOC Board members are legally allowed to take off), I am not inclined to ignore legal advice from ISOC's corporate counsel. Maybe the IETF Chair could ask the IETF lawyer (Jorge) whether changing the word from controlled to managed has any bad legal implications for the IETF? Margaret At 12:33 AM -0800 2/11/05, Dave Crocker wrote: On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 09:56:22 -0800, Ted Hardie wrote: Ý ISOC has proposed this: Ý ÝÝThis document describes the structure of the IETF Administrative Ý ÝÝSupport Activity (IASA) as an IETF-managed activity housed within the Ý ÝÝInternet Society (ISOC). Ý to replace this: Ý ÝÝThis document describes the structure of the IETF Administrative Ý ÝÝSupport Activity (IASA) as an IETF-controlled activity housed within Ý ÝÝthe Internet Society (ISOC) legal umbrella. Ý Speaking personally, I strongly prefer controlled to managed, Ý and I believe that the formulations we've used up to now intended Ý the under ISOC's wing view that IETF-controlled implies. ÝChanging Ý it weakens a formulation that is core to the community consensus Ý that we've built over time, and I don't think it is a good idea. IETF-managed means that it is managed by the IETF? Yet isn't that exactly what it is NOT. It is an IETF activity, managed by an ISOC employee. Or maybe the real is really is about control? One thing that is likely is that a negotiation that involves this degree of disparity of language also involves strategic disparities between the two groups doing the negotiating. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker Ýa t ... WE'VE MOVED to: Ýwww.bbiw.net ___ 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
Controlled vs Managed (Re: ASCII diff of ISOC-proposed changes to BCP)
--On 11. februar 2005 07:03 -0500 Margaret Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, with my ISOC Board hat on (a hat which none of the ISOC Board members are legally allowed to take off), I am not inclined to ignore legal advice from ISOC's corporate counsel. Maybe the IETF Chair could ask the IETF lawyer (Jorge) whether changing the word from controlled to managed has any bad legal implications for the IETF? I asked Jorge, and here's what he said: this is a political point rather than a legal one. The precise nature of the control/management is described elsewhere, so this is just a characterization rather than operative (executable) language. So based on that advice, I'm not inclined to make a fuss over the term. but somewhat surprised that ISOC's lawyer thinks it's fuss-worthy. Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Controlled vs Managed (Re: ASCII diff of ISOC-proposed changes to BCP)
For myself, I find the arguments on both sides of controlled and managed to be compelling -- perhaps because I am not a lawyer. However, I am conscious that the words we write down are scrutinized and used by people the world over -- not always to our benefit, and often without any of the context that caused us to write them [*]. So, if the token really doesn't mean anything (per Jorge) because the import is in the text of the document, perhaps the right answer is to just *drop* that clause. This document describes the structure of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) as an [delete] activity housed within the Internet Society (ISOC). That makes the entire abstract: This document describes the structure of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) as an activity housed within the Internet Society (ISOC). It defines the roles and responsibilities of the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC), the IETF Administrative Director (IAD), and ISOC in the fiscal and administrative support of the IETF standards process. It also defines the membership and selection rules for the IAOC. I think this is still clear about where responsibilities lie; the document defines them in more detail; there is less possibility for misconception (by using either controlled or managed, depending on your perspective). Leslie. [*] A specific example, in a contribution to ITU re. e164.arpa: As can be seen from: http://www.iana.org/arpa-dom/e164.htm the domain e164.arpa is delegated to: Internet Architecture Board (IAB) c/o IETF Secretariat Corporation for National Research Initiatives (CNRI) 1895 Preston White Drive Suite 100 Reston, Virginia 20191-5434 The IAB has no legal personality of its own, nor does the IETF. So it would appear that the legal entity which can control changes to the entries under e164.arpa is the Corporation for National Research Initiatives (CNRI). The whois entry is written this way because the IAB has no (other) mailing address. It does *not* mean that CNRI is in control of the e164.arpa domain, but that's what this expression apparently means to people. It's this sort of thing that leads me to (personally) prefer the use of the term controlled, if we're going to use a term. But, if that term introduces misconceptions on the legal side, I'd rather just drop the whole thing. Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: --On 11. februar 2005 07:03 -0500 Margaret Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, with my ISOC Board hat on (a hat which none of the ISOC Board members are legally allowed to take off), I am not inclined to ignore legal advice from ISOC's corporate counsel. Maybe the IETF Chair could ask the IETF lawyer (Jorge) whether changing the word from controlled to managed has any bad legal implications for the IETF? I asked Jorge, and here's what he said: this is a political point rather than a legal one. The precise nature of the control/management is described elsewhere, so this is just a characterization rather than operative (executable) language. So based on that advice, I'm not inclined to make a fuss over the term. but somewhat surprised that ISOC's lawyer thinks it's fuss-worthy. 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: ASCII diff of ISOC-proposed changes to BCP
A couple other comments: Fred Baker wrote: ISOC proposes to replace this: Within the constraints outlined above, all other details of how to structure this activity within ISOC (whether as a cost center, a department, or a formal subsidiary) shall be determined by ISOC in consultation with the IAOC. with this: Within the constraints outlined above, all other details of how to structure this activity within ISOC (whether as a cost center, a division, or a wholly controlled affiliate) shall be determined by ISOC in consultation with the IAOC. Again, I am not an expert here, but my reading of formal subsidiary and wholly controlled affiliate is not the same. The issue of control is a very sensitive one here, and I strongly suggest not using the term control here unless there is an extraordinarily strong reason to do so. This activity is controlled by the IETF in partnership with ISOC, through the offices of the IAOC. If there are other terms available that do not muddy those waters, I would strongly prefer that they are used. [snip] Maybe we can agree to call ISOC a non-profit corporation, and the IETF its affiliate? Legally, so I'm told (IANAL), the relationship doesn't change - ISOC is viewed as being legally in control and therefore legally whom to sue, and IETF is the child in the relationship. But we can sugar-coat that if it makes the fact more palatable. That would make the paragraph read Within the constraints outlined above, all other details of how to structure this activity (whether as a cost center, a division, or an affiliate) shall be determined by ISOC in consultation with the IAOC. This works for me. I wanted to comment because I believe I'm responsible for some original piece of this text, and the intent was simply to elaborate that the possibilities for implementation were varied and not part of what was being specified here. So, if one of the example forms was a bogon, it's important to replace it! Also, To try to minimize the change from the original edits, may I suggest this: Should the IETF standards process at some future date come to include other technical activities, the IAOC is responsible for developing plans to provide administrative support for them. Is that better? That probably makes more sense. BTW, ISOC and the IASA are logical places to look for such. But in this context IASA is the hands and feet and IAOC is the brain. So putting the responsibility with the IAOC is probably rational. FWIW, I like this proposal. I don't believe the intention was ever to create blank cheques, but the IASA as a whole is meant to be driven by the IETF's needs, and we shouldn't lose sight of that even as we give the IAOC the necessary tools to push back on things it can't do. I think this strikes the reasonable balance. Leslie. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Additional supported activities (Re: ASCII diff of ISOC-proposed changes to BCP)
--On 11. februar 2005 11:52 -0500 Leslie Daigle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To try to minimize the change from the original edits, may I suggest this: Should the IETF standards process at some future date come to include other technical activities, the IAOC is responsible for developing plans to provide administrative support for them. Is that better? That probably makes more sense. BTW, ISOC and the IASA are logical places to look for such. But in this context IASA is the hands and feet and IAOC is the brain. So putting the responsibility with the IAOC is probably rational. FWIW, I like this proposal. I don't believe the intention was ever to create blank cheques, but the IASA as a whole is meant to be driven by the IETF's needs, and we shouldn't lose sight of that even as we give the IAOC the necessary tools to push back on things it can't do. I think this strikes the reasonable balance. Added to edit buffer. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Controlled vs Managed (Re: ASCII diff of ISOC-proposed changes to BCP)
Leslie, this works for ISOC. Lynn At 11:15 AM -0500 2/11/05, Leslie Daigle wrote: That makes the entire abstract: This document describes the structure of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) as an activity housed within the Internet Society (ISOC). It defines the roles and responsibilities of the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC), the IETF Administrative Director (IAD), and ISOC in the fiscal and administrative support of the IETF standards process. It also defines the membership and selection rules for the IAOC. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Controlled vs Managed (Re: ASCII diff of ISOC-proposed changes to BCP)
Hi Leslie - For myself, I find the arguments on both sides of controlled and managed to be compelling -- perhaps because I am not a lawyer. Finding both sides compelling makes you very qualified to be a lawyer. ;) snip So, if the token really doesn't mean anything (per Jorge) because the import is in the text of the document, perhaps the right answer is to just *drop* that clause. That makes sense. Regarads, Carl ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Controlled vs Managed (Re: ASCII diff of ISOC-proposed changes to BCP)
At 11:15 AM -0500 2/11/05, Leslie Daigle wrote: So, if the token really doesn't mean anything (per Jorge) because the import is in the text of the document, perhaps the right answer is to just *drop* that clause. This document describes the structure of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) as an [delete] activity housed within the Internet Society (ISOC). That makes the entire abstract: This document describes the structure of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) as an activity housed within the Internet Society (ISOC). It defines the roles and responsibilities of the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC), the IETF Administrative Director (IAD), and ISOC in the fiscal and administrative support of the IETF standards process. It also defines the membership and selection rules for the IAOC. I think this is a very sensible way out of the problem, and I support it. Ted ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: ASCII diff of ISOC-proposed changes to BCP
So we checked with our lawyer. Unlike the IETF, which is always completely smooth in its consensus and never finds experts differing in opinion, it would appear that in the legal profession experts can differ in their opinions. That said, he classed the issue as, in IETF terms, the difference between a MUST and a SHOULD. He can live with controlled. :^) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: ASCII diff of ISOC-proposed changes to BCP
--On 9. februar 2005 21:27 +0200 Kai Henningsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Harald Tveit Alvestrand) wrote on 09.02.05 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: !7. As bestween, the IETF, IASA and ISOC, the IETF, through the IASA, Huh?! I can't parse that. Lynn said that the ISOC lawyer said that this is standard legal grammar for these are the parties whose relationship the next part of the sentence describes. I agree that it's not normal English. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: ASCII diff of ISOC-proposed changes to BCP
According to my local dictionary, bestween isn't even a word. The MS-Word copy that Lynn circulated uses the word between here, so this is a typo in the ASCII diff. I am doubtful that As between, the IETF, IASA and ISOC, the IETF, through IASA, shall have... is not standard grammar, legal or otherwise. Could we ask the lawyer if something was lost in translation somwhere? Or, perhaps there is a more conventional way to say this that would also meet with legal approval? Margaret At 10:56 AM +0100 2/10/05, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: --On 9. februar 2005 21:27 +0200 Kai Henningsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Harald Tveit Alvestrand) wrote on 09.02.05 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: !7. As bestween, the IETF, IASA and ISOC, the IETF, through the IASA, Huh?! I can't parse that. Lynn said that the ISOC lawyer said that this is standard legal grammar for these are the parties whose relationship the next part of the sentence describes. I agree that it's not normal English. ___ 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: ASCII diff of ISOC-proposed changes to BCP
At 10:56 10/02/2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: Lynn said that the ISOC lawyer said that this is standard legal grammar for these are the parties whose relationship the next part of the sentence describes. I agree that it's not normal English. Sorry, to interrupt your important discussion about legal English grammar oddities. But it happens that today is the last day for comments to the WGIG. To formulate my own fair comments I need to be confirmed the IETF is not interested in addressing the needs they documented as they think they have adjusted for a long. Background. There are may be today 850.000.000 non permanent web watchers and spam sufferers using their world digital ecosystem with the IETF end to end Internet application, with ICANN as an operator, and may be 50.000.000 DNs and 97.5% illegitimate DNS root calls. There are also 190 countries decided to get a return from their 25 last years efforts in reducing computer and bandwidth costs. They issued an RFP under the form of Resolutions and Points of actions. They have a last call period ending tomorrow. When you translate their request in rough figures, they want to support within 20 years (shorter delays for choices and planning) an extended services, broad bandwidth continuity and an interpersonal brain to brains (cpu2cpu) ubiquitous and 24/365 space of secure, reliable, fast privacy protected multi-exchanges. One can guesstimate 20.000.000.000 stations, 7.000.000.000 users (or more as individuals have home/office systems), probably one or two terra names and more numbers and RFIDs, using 7620 languages (ISO last current count), 20.000 dialects (last non-ISO very reduced count), for 42650 business areas (last UN count) most with their proximity risk contained networks, in full respect both of national, business, personal privacy, empowerment and sovereignty and of support of States regalian services, at a cost and an intergovernance complexity the developing countries can foot, so they can bridge the digital divide without fearing an e-colonization. Support to every bidder is available by the 167 years old, Governments created, ITU.Competition is at least by the users' own . InterNAT co solution. jfc ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
WGIG (Re: ASCII diff of ISOC-proposed changes to BCP)
Jefsey, I think you can take it as a given that the IETF will not be providing any explicit input into the WGIG process. ISOC is an active participant in the process, and many IETF participants are, but IETF the standards maker is not. Instead, the IETF will continue formulating standards that may help solve the problems as they are encountered. That's what the IETF is about. If that is not what you are talking about, I have failed to understand you again. I am certain that I don't know what you mean by bidder. --On torsdag, februar 10, 2005 16:05:50 +0100 JFC (Jefsey) Morfin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 10:56 10/02/2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: Lynn said that the ISOC lawyer said that this is standard legal grammar for these are the parties whose relationship the next part of the sentence describes. I agree that it's not normal English. Sorry, to interrupt your important discussion about legal English grammar oddities. But it happens that today is the last day for comments to the WGIG. To formulate my own fair comments I need to be confirmed the IETF is not interested in addressing the needs they documented as they think they have adjusted for a long. Background. There are may be today 850.000.000 non permanent web watchers and spam sufferers using their world digital ecosystem with the IETF end to end Internet application, with ICANN as an operator, and may be 50.000.000 DNs and 97.5% illegitimate DNS root calls. There are also 190 countries decided to get a return from their 25 last years efforts in reducing computer and bandwidth costs. They issued an RFP under the form of Resolutions and Points of actions. They have a last call period ending tomorrow. When you translate their request in rough figures, they want to support within 20 years (shorter delays for choices and planning) an extended services, broad bandwidth continuity and an interpersonal brain to brains (cpu2cpu) ubiquitous and 24/365 space of secure, reliable, fast privacy protected multi-exchanges. One can guesstimate 20.000.000.000 stations, 7.000.000.000 users (or more as individuals have home/office systems), probably one or two terra names and more numbers and RFIDs, using 7620 languages (ISO last current count), 20.000 dialects (last non-ISO very reduced count), for 42650 business areas (last UN count) most with their proximity risk contained networks, in full respect both of national, business, personal privacy, empowerment and sovereignty and of support of States regalian services, at a cost and an intergovernance complexity the developing countries can foot, so they can bridge the digital divide without fearing an e-colonization. Support to every bidder is available by the 167 years old, Governments created, ITU.Competition is at least by the users' own . InterNAT co solution. jfc ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: ASCII diff of ISOC-proposed changes to BCP
Ted: The suggestions ISOC made were pursuant to our lawyer's comments, so they tend to have something to do with legalese. We are asking SkaddenArps to reply to your note. But let me interject... At 09:56 AM 02/09/05 -0800, Ted Hardie wrote: Some comments, using Harald's diff as a starting point. ISOC has proposed this: This document describes the structure of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) as an IETF-managed activity housed within the Internet Society (ISOC). to replace this: This document describes the structure of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) as an IETF-controlled activity housed within the Internet Society (ISOC) legal umbrella. Speaking personally, I strongly prefer controlled to managed, and I believe that the formulations we've used up to now intended the under ISOC's wing view that IETF-controlled implies. Changing it weakens a formulation that is core to the community consensus that we've built over time, and I don't think it is a good idea. On this point, what we (IETFISOC) have been discussing is a variation on a matrix management operation. ISOC provides the organization and organizational support, while the IAD clearly takes operational direction from the IAOC, who in turn have a responsibility to the IETF community. While we have taken a lot of pains to specify this, because it is organizations at work rather than the internals of a company, this is something that we have all probably worked in and understand reasonably well. I think the lawyer's desire for the word managed vs controlled is seeking legal clarity in the terminology here. Managed is the usual word for what the IAOC does in this context, and controlled isn't. ISOC has proposed this: Should the IETF standards process at some future date come to include other technical activities, the IASA shall use reasonable efforts to provide administrative support for those activities as well. to replace this: Should the IETF standards process at some future date come to include other technical activities, the IASA shall provide administrative support for those activities as well. I can see the desire not to write blank checks, and I suspect the concern on ISOC's part is that saying IASA provides for support for future technical activities implies such a blank check. I think use reasonable efforts is the wrong set of weasel words, though, as it implies that the IASA (in some vague fashion) gets to decide what those efforts are. May I suggest the following instead: Should the IETF standards process change over time, the IAOC will work with the IETF community and ISOC BoT to adapt its support so that new support activities can be managed under the IASA function. That's not a blank check, it gets across the idea that new functions stay under IASA/ISOC and don't go elsewhere, and it focuses the adaptation on the IAOC as a body (rather than IASA as a function). Actually, I think your proposed language is a blank check. It states that the outcome will be (no way to say no, that doesn't make sense) support for the activity. Reasonable efforts is a standard legal phrase. As your proposed change below accomplishes the same thing, I don't understand the need to invent phraseology - we should stick to commonly accepted terminology. We both seem to agree that a blank check is not what we're looking for, so where's the problem? In addition, the BCP describes the supporting decision process quite well. The ISOC lawyer's proposed edit, by the way, changes less words than your proposed edit. In a related note, the proposed changes shift use reasonable efforts to commercially reasonable efforts in the following: The IASA expects ISOC to use commercially reasonable efforts to build and provide that operational reserve, through whatever mechanisms ISOC deems appropriate. I am not sure what, if any, specific meaning this change implies, but I find it odd that it should occur here and not in the other areas. I also found it odd when thinking of a nonprofit (this is likely due to my ignorance of the term's usage). But I have expected from other communication that explicit fund-raising efforts might go into this process of building a reserve, and it would be nice to have it clarified that efforts of that nature fall into commercially reasonable. Alternatively, using use reasonable efforts in the above makes sense, since a fund-raising entities reasonable efforts pretty likely include things like endowment/capital campaigns and the like. Lynn and I just spent some time on the phone talking about this, and we couldn't figure out the difference between a reasonable effort and a commercially reasonable effort either. I'll give you that one. ISOC proposes to replace this: Within the constraints outlined above, all other details of how to structure this activity within ISOC (whether as a cost center, a
Re: ASCII diff of ISOC-proposed changes to BCP
At 05:12 PM 02/10/05 -0800, Ted Hardie wrote: I think the lawyer's desire for the word managed vs controlled is seeking legal clarity in the terminology here. Managed is the usual word for what the IAOC does in this context, and controlled isn't. I agree that managed is what the IAOC does here. But the statement is an *IETF-controlled* activity, and that's an important difference. Looking at the description of removability in Section 7, there is a clear statement that the IETF controls the activity to the point that it may decide to re-house it (though it has no plans to do so and I would certainly oppose such plans at this juncture). To me, control captures the overall relationship between the *IETF* and the IASA better than manage. Again, I realize that the details are set out in the document, but the change proposed by ISOC is to the Abstract, which will guide the thinking of many readers; I would appreciate us retaining the original language unless there is a strong legal reason why we cannot. The legal reason (and again, IANAL, I'm just listening to one) is that *legally* the ISOC Board is the legal entity bearing fiduciary responsibility, and therefore the entity *legally* in control. Again, the person in control is the person you sue, and suits go to the ISOC Board. I understand your issue and concern here, I think. What you're thinking is if the IETF wants X, the IAOC is on the hook to make X happen, and the IASA/IAD had jolly well better do so. That's control. No problem, among us reasonable people, and if I have anything to say about it it will be so. But legally, the IAD is bound to do so because the ISOC Board told him/her so, putting the ISOC Board in control and seconding that control to the IETF. Matrix management and all that. There are days I scare myself, days on which I begin to understand how a lawyer thinks a reasonable man thinks... To try to minimize the change from the original edits, may I suggest this: Should the IETF standards process at some future date come to include other technical activities, the IAOC is responsible for developing plans to provide administrative support for them. Is that better? That probably makes more sense. BTW, ISOC and the IASA are logical places to look for such. But in this context IASA is the hands and feet and IAOC is the brain. So putting the responsibility with the IAOC is probably rational. Maybe we can agree to call ISOC a non-profit corporation, and the IETF its affiliate? Legally, so I'm told (IANAL), the relationship doesn't change - ISOC is viewed as being legally in control and therefore legally whom to sue, and IETF is the child in the relationship. But we can sugar-coat that if it makes the fact more palatable. That would make the paragraph read Within the constraints outlined above, all other details of how to structure this activity (whether as a cost center, a division, or an affiliate) shall be determined by ISOC in consultation with the IAOC. Alternatively, maybe you could suggest a better *legal* term for the relationship? Using the term affiliate in the sentence above is fine with me. Thanks again for your time and effort on this, OK, thanks. Are we in a position to post a -07 draft responsive to these issues? When I see such, I am prepared to open a board ballot. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: ASCII diff of ISOC-proposed changes to BCP
--On torsdag, februar 10, 2005 17:56:42 -0800 Fred Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are we in a position to post a -07 draft responsive to these issues? When I see such, I am prepared to open a board ballot. As soon as I've seen a couple of hours pass with all parties seeming to be reasonably happy, I'll ship -07 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
ASCII diff of ISOC-proposed changes to BCP
As part of considering the changes proposed by ISOC, I integrated the changes into the XML document and prepared an ASCII diff -c file, editing it to remove the noise around changed line breaks. This may be easier for the issue tracker to integrate than the change-marked Word document or the PDF file. Enclosed. Harald *** draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-as-06.txt Wed Feb 9 14:25:23 2005 --- draft-ietf-iasa-bcp.txt Wed Feb 9 14:34:19 2005 *** *** *** 113,127 Internet-Draft Structure of IASA February 2005 1. Introduction This document describes the structure of the IETF Administrative !Support Activity (IASA) as an IETF-controlled activity housed within !the Internet Society (ISOC) legal umbrella. It defines the roles and !responsibilities of the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee !(IAOC), the IETF Administrative Director (IAD), and ISOC in the !fiscal and administrative support of the IETF standards process. It !also defines the membership and selection rules for the IAOC. The IETF undertakes its technical activities as an ongoing, open, consensus-based process. This document defines an administrative --- 113,183 1. Introduction This document describes the structure of the IETF Administrative !Support Activity (IASA) as an IETF-managed activity housed within the !Internet Society (ISOC). It defines the roles and responsibilities !of the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC), the IETF !Administrative Director (IAD), and ISOC in the fiscal and !administrative support of the IETF standards process. It also !defines the membership and selection rules for the IAOC. The IETF undertakes its technical activities as an ongoing, open, consensus-based process. This document defines an administrative *** *** 138,152 time at which this document was written, this included the work of IETF working groups, the IESG, the IAB, and the IRTF. Should the IETF standards process at some future date come to include other !technical activities, the IASA shall provide administrative support !for those activities as well. Such support includes, as appropriate, !undertaking or contracting for the work described in [RFC3716], !including IETF document and data management, IETF meetings, and any !operational agreements or contracts with the RFC Editor and IANA. !The IASA is also ultimately responsible for the financial activities !associated with IETF administrative support such as collecting IETF !meeting fees, paying invoices, managing budgets and financial !accounts, and so forth. The IASA is responsible for ensuring that the IETF's administrative needs are met, and met well. The IETF does not expect the IASA to --- 194,208 time at which this document was written, this included the work of IETF working groups, the IESG, the IAB, and the IRTF. Should the IETF standards process at some future date come to include other !technical activities, the IASA shall use reasonable efforts to !provide administrative support for those activities as well. Such !support includes, as appropriate, undertaking or contracting for the !work described in [RFC3716], including IETF document and data !management, IETF meetings, and any operational agreements or !contracts with the RFC Editor and IANA. The IASA is also ultimately !responsible for the financial activities associated with IETF !administrative support such as collecting IETF meeting fees, paying !invoices, managing budgets and financial accounts, and so forth. The IASA is responsible for ensuring that the IETF's administrative needs are met, and met well. The IETF does not expect the IASA to *** *** 298,310 donations shall only be accepted at the direction of the IAD and IAOC. !7. The IETF, through the IASA, shall have a perpetual right to use, !display, distribute, reproduce, modify and create derivatives of !all software and data created in support of IETF activities. ! !8. The IASA, in cooperation with ISOC, shall ensure that sufficient !reserves exist to keep the IETF operational in the case of !unexpected events such as income shortfalls. The remainder of this document contains details based on the above principles. --- 354,368 donations shall only be accepted at the direction of the IAD and IAOC. !7. As bestween, the IETF, IASA and ISOC, the IETF, through the IASA, !shall have a perpetual right to use, display, distribute, !reproduce, modify and create derivatives of all software and data !created in support of IETF activities. ! !8. The IASA, in cooperation with ISOC, shall
Re: ASCII diff of ISOC-proposed changes to BCP
Some comments, using Harald's diff as a starting point. ISOC has proposed this: This document describes the structure of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) as an IETF-managed activity housed within the Internet Society (ISOC). to replace this: This document describes the structure of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) as an IETF-controlled activity housed within the Internet Society (ISOC) legal umbrella. Speaking personally, I strongly prefer controlled to managed, and I believe that the formulations we've used up to now intended the under ISOC's wing view that IETF-controlled implies. Changing it weakens a formulation that is core to the community consensus that we've built over time, and I don't think it is a good idea. ISOC has proposed this: Should the IETF standards process at some future date come to include other technical activities, the IASA shall use reasonable efforts to provide administrative support for those activities as well. to replace this: Should the IETF standards process at some future date come to include other technical activities, the IASA shall provide administrative support for those activities as well. I can see the desire not to write blank checks, and I suspect the concern on ISOC's part is that saying IASA provides for support for futuredtechnical activities implies such a blank check. I think use reasonable efforts is the wrong set of weasel words, though, as it implies that the IASA (in some vague fashion) gets to decide what those efforts are. May I suggest the following instead: Should the IETF standards process change over time, the IAOC will work with the IETF community and ISOC BoT to adapt its support so that new support activities can be managed under the IASA function. That's not a blank check, it gets across the idea that new functions stay under IASA/ISOC and don't go elsewhere, and it focuses the adaptation on the IAOC as a body (rather than IASA as a function). In a related note, the proposed changes shift use reasonable efforts to commercially reasonable efforts in the following: The IASA expects ISOC to use commercially reasonable efforts to build and provide that operational reserve, through whatever mechanisms ISOC deems appropriate. I am not sure what, if any, specific meaning this change implies, but I find it odd that it should occur here and not in the other areas. I also found it odd when thinking of a nonprofit (this is likely due to my ignorance of the term's usage). But I have expected from other communication that explicit fund-raising efforts might go into this process of building a reserve, and it would be nice to have it clarified that efforts of that nature fall into commercially reasonable. Alternatively, using use reasonable efforts in the above makes sense, since a fund-raising entities reasonable efforts pretty likely include things like endowment/capital campaigns and the like. ISOC proposes to replace this: Within the constraints outlined above, all other details of how to structure this activity within ISOC (whether as a cost center, a department, or a formal subsidiary) shall be determined by ISOC in consultation with the IAOC. with this: Within the constraints outlined above, all other details of how to structure this activity within ISOC (whether as a cost center, a division, or a wholly controlled affiliate) shall be determined by ISOC in consultation with the IAOC. Again, I am not an expert here, but my reading of formal subsidiary and wholly controlled affiliate is not the same. The issue of control is a very sensitive one here, and I strongly suggest not using the term control here unless there is an extraordinarily strong reason to do so. This activity is controlled by the IETF in partnership with ISOC, through the offices of the IAOC. If there are other terms available that do not muddy those waters, I would strongly prefer that they are used. Speaking personally, best regards, Ted Hardie ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: ASCII diff of ISOC-proposed changes to BCP
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Harald Tveit Alvestrand) wrote on 09.02.05 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: !7. As bestween, the IETF, IASA and ISOC, the IETF, through the IASA, Huh?! I can't parse that. MfG Kai ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
