RE: Edits - #819 - Elwyn's editorials
> Brian E Carpenter writes: > > Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > > > > > > --On 25. januar 2005 11:40 +0100 Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > >> Harald, I'm with you except perhaps for the data protection > >> issue. Elwyn is right that laws in this area vary widely > >> and if, for example, a subcontractor is located in the EU > >> they will be much more constrained about use of personal > >> data than in the US. > >> > >> I suggest adding something to the IAD's responsibilities, > >> rather than to the principles. Somewhere in section 3.1: > >> > >> The IAD shall ensure that personal data collected for > >> legitimate purposes of the IASA are protected according > >> to relevant legislation. > > > > > > That makes sense to me too. I think the IASA should take care for > > personal data protection because it is right too, so I'd > > make it stronger: > > > > The IAD shall ensure that personal data collected for > > legitimate purposes of the IASA are protected appropriately, > > and at least satisfactorily according to relevant legislation. > > > > Place it just after paragraph 5 of section 3.1, the one that starts out > > talking about contracts giving the IETF rights in data - it seems > > appropriate. > > > > OK? > > OK 4 me > OK by me. I have above text now in my edit buffer. Bert > Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Edits - #819 - Elwyn's editorials
Inline > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > Harald Tveit Alvestrand > Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 18:42 > To: ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Edits - #819 - Elwyn's editorials > > > There has apparently been no comments on these I thought > I'd make a > pass... > > > Some thoughts: > > S1, para 3: s/Such support includes/The support for current work includes/ > > this works either way for me - "current" seems to say "the next sentences > describe what is currently done, and the future may be different". > Suggest that we accept the edit. > I can certainly make the change. But in my ears, the current text sounds much better. In fact I am not sure that we mean just "current" but also possible "future" work. > > S1, Para 3: > >> 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. > > > > Given that IETF/IASA is operating as some sort of subsidiary of ISOC, I'm > > not sure that IASA can be ultimately responsible for > > anything. s/ultimately/day-to-day/ or some such? > > I'd go for just deleting "ultimately". The work may be contracted out, so > it's not day-to-day, but "ultimately" is just trouble. > I remember that when we discussed this, the idea we wanted to express is that the IAD does the day-to-day work (or outsources it) but that IASA has the ultimate responsibility. That is, IASA must make sure things happen, but can outsource or assign to a specific person. So again... I am not sure we want to make any change. > > S1, para 4: 'and met well' ? Nice thought but what does it *actually* > > mean? > > That we (the IETF) like the result? > I would like this to stay, undefined as it is. > I like it to stay the way it is too > > S2.2: I know that US data protection laws and practices are not as well > > developed as European ones, but I think there ought to be some duty to > > protect the data and generate a suitable privacy policy, as well as keep > > it available. (Item 7). > > I think there should be - but don't see a good way of capturing it here. > I'd let it go for now and try to instruct the IASA later > Per Brians and Haralds email exchange I now have text for that (see my other email). > > S2.2: Should the IASA be responsible for ensuring that the IETF > > (especially if it is run as a subsidiary) fulfils its legal and > > regulatory > > responsibilities? It certainly needs to maintain any records that might > > be needed for such purposes beyond just financial matters. I am not > > expert in US company law but I am sure there must be *some* things they > > would need to do. > > Hm. Yes. It needs to deal with subpoenas and other irritations, for > instance. > But this is a bit like saying "you are responsible for > staying wet while in > water". I can't think of text at the moment > > > S3.1, para 3: This para states that signing powers will be > delegated to > > the IAD up to some specified limit. Who has signing powers > beyond this? > > This is just part of a much wider point about the actual > powers of the > > IETF/IAOC and the relationship with ISOC which I will > discuss at the end > > of these notes. > > The text at the moment doesn't say exactly that - it says > that "we'll work > it out".. I don't know what more it CAN say > > > S3.1: I think this whole section should be much clearer > about exactly > > what powers are delegated to the IAD to make commitments, > as opposed to > > just negotiating: ISOC executes the contracts but the IAD > will want to > > know that ISOC is a rubber stamp/back stop for this > process and is not > > going to start second guessing him if he operates within > the parameters > > set for him. This is related to the long discussion on > Issue 739. There > > is also the potential for dispute between IAOC and > IAD/ISOC which is not > > really addressed. > > Not sure what to add here, if anything - this will have to be > worked out in > practical terms, and the IAOC will have to work out the details in > cooperation with the ISOC President. > Should there be specific language? > > > s3.4: It would be nice to see a requirement that minutes > were published > > in a set period o
Re: Edits - #819 - Elwyn's editorials
Harald suggests > The IAD shall ensure that personal data collected for > legitimate purposes of the IASA are protected appropriately, > and at least satisfactorily according to relevant legislation. > > Place it just after paragraph 5 of section 3.1, the one that starts out > talking about contracts giving the IETF rights in data - it seems > appropriate. > > OK? yup Scott ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Edits - #819 - Elwyn's editorials
At 17:42 24/01/2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: There has apparently been no comments on these I thought I'd make a pass... Some thoughts: S1, para 3: s/Such support includes/The support for current work includes/ this works either way for me - "current" seems to say "the next sentences describe what is currently done, and the future may be different". Suggest that we accept the edit. Fine. S1, Para 3: 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. Given that IETF/IASA is operating as some sort of subsidiary of ISOC, I'm not sure that IASA can be ultimately responsible for anything. s/ultimately/day-to-day/ or some such? I'd go for just deleting "ultimately". The work may be contracted out, so it's not day-to-day, but "ultimately" is just trouble. Also fine. S1, para 4: 'and met well' ? Nice thought but what does it *actually* mean? That we (the IETF) like the result? I would like this to stay, undefined as it is. The only thing I would say here is that, whilst the IASA and the IAD are to be the IETF's servants (with will expressed by the IAOC in the normal course of events), asking them to 'meet something well' is in a sense asking them to second guess what we really meant rather than spelling it out properly in the first place. Are we really asking for them to be proactive rather totally reactive? This is usually what is meant when somebody gets an 'exceed' on their performance assessment: So why don't we spell it out.. make it quite clear that we are not after a passive servant but an organisation that thinks for itself to produce the best possible solution within the various constraints the IAD and IASA should be encouraged to advise the IETF/IAOC on best options for implementation and suggest ways in which processes could be improved. S2.2: I know that US data protection laws and practices are not as well developed as European ones, but I think there ought to be some duty to protect the data and generate a suitable privacy policy, as well as keep it available. (Item 7). I think there should be - but don't see a good way of capturing it here. I'd let it go for now and try to instruct the IASA later I' am happy with the words negotiated between Harald and Brian. S2.2: Should the IASA be responsible for ensuring that the IETF (especially if it is run as a subsidiary) fulfils its legal and regulatory responsibilities? It certainly needs to maintain any records that might be needed for such purposes beyond just financial matters. I am not expert in US company law but I am sure there must be *some* things they would need to do. Hm. Yes. It needs to deal with subpoenas and other irritations, for instance. But this is a bit like saying "you are responsible for staying wet while in water". I can't think of text at the moment Responsibilities of the IAD: 'Working with ISOC to maintain records needed to fulfil the IETF's legal and regulatory duties, and providing information to allow IETF to respond in a timely fashion to any legal or regulatory requests.' S3.1, para 3: This para states that signing powers will be delegated to the IAD up to some specified limit. Who has signing powers beyond this? This is just part of a much wider point about the actual powers of the IETF/IAOC and the relationship with ISOC which I will discuss at the end of these notes. The text at the moment doesn't say exactly that - it says that "we'll work it out".. I don't know what more it CAN say Can you make it clear that IAOC has a role in authorizing larger payments even if they actually have to be signed by ISOC president or whatever? S3.1: I think this whole section should be much clearer about exactly what powers are delegated to the IAD to make commitments, as opposed to just negotiating: ISOC executes the contracts but the IAD will want to know that ISOC is a rubber stamp/back stop for this process and is not going to start second guessing him if he operates within the parameters set for him. This is related to the long discussion on Issue 739. There is also the potential for dispute between IAOC and IAD/ISOC which is not really addressed. Not sure what to add here, if anything - this will have to be worked out in practical terms, and the IAOC will have to work out the details in cooperation with the ISOC President. Should there be specific language? The problem I saw was that the words seemed to be a little unclear as to whether the IAD could actually authorise contracts as well as negotiate them: does the signing power apply only to signing checks or also to signing contracts on behalf of ISOC? s3.4: It would be nice to see a requirement that minutes were published in a set period or at least in a timely fashion after meetings, rather than just regularly. Suggest s/reg
Re: Edits - #819 - Elwyn's editorials
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: --On 25. januar 2005 11:40 +0100 Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Harald, I'm with you except perhaps for the data protection issue. Elwyn is right that laws in this area vary widely and if, for example, a subcontractor is located in the EU they will be much more constrained about use of personal data than in the US. I suggest adding something to the IAD's responsibilities, rather than to the principles. Somewhere in section 3.1: The IAD shall ensure that personal data collected for legitimate purposes of the IASA are protected according to relevant legislation. That makes sense to me too. I think the IASA should take care for personal data protection because it is right too, so I'd make it stronger: The IAD shall ensure that personal data collected for legitimate purposes of the IASA are protected appropriately, and at least satisfactorily according to relevant legislation. Place it just after paragraph 5 of section 3.1, the one that starts out talking about contracts giving the IETF rights in data - it seems appropriate. OK? OK 4 me Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Edits - #819 - Elwyn's editorials
--On 25. januar 2005 11:40 +0100 Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Harald, I'm with you except perhaps for the data protection issue. Elwyn is right that laws in this area vary widely and if, for example, a subcontractor is located in the EU they will be much more constrained about use of personal data than in the US. I suggest adding something to the IAD's responsibilities, rather than to the principles. Somewhere in section 3.1: The IAD shall ensure that personal data collected for legitimate purposes of the IASA are protected according to relevant legislation. That makes sense to me too. I think the IASA should take care for personal data protection because it is right too, so I'd make it stronger: The IAD shall ensure that personal data collected for legitimate purposes of the IASA are protected appropriately, and at least satisfactorily according to relevant legislation. Place it just after paragraph 5 of section 3.1, the one that starts out talking about contracts giving the IETF rights in data - it seems appropriate. OK? Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Edits - #819 - Elwyn's editorials
Harald, I'm with you except perhaps for the data protection issue. Elwyn is right that laws in this area vary widely and if, for example, a subcontractor is located in the EU they will be much more constrained about use of personal data than in the US. I suggest adding something to the IAD's responsibilities, rather than to the principles. Somewhere in section 3.1: The IAD shall ensure that personal data collected for legitimate purposes of the IASA are protected according to relevant legislation. Brian Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: There has apparently been no comments on these I thought I'd make a pass... Some thoughts: S1, para 3: s/Such support includes/The support for current work includes/ this works either way for me - "current" seems to say "the next sentences describe what is currently done, and the future may be different". Suggest that we accept the edit. S1, Para 3: 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. Given that IETF/IASA is operating as some sort of subsidiary of ISOC, I'm not sure that IASA can be ultimately responsible for anything. s/ultimately/day-to-day/ or some such? I'd go for just deleting "ultimately". The work may be contracted out, so it's not day-to-day, but "ultimately" is just trouble. S1, para 4: 'and met well' ? Nice thought but what does it *actually* mean? That we (the IETF) like the result? I would like this to stay, undefined as it is. S2.2: I know that US data protection laws and practices are not as well developed as European ones, but I think there ought to be some duty to protect the data and generate a suitable privacy policy, as well as keep it available. (Item 7). I think there should be - but don't see a good way of capturing it here. I'd let it go for now and try to instruct the IASA later S2.2: Should the IASA be responsible for ensuring that the IETF (especially if it is run as a subsidiary) fulfils its legal and regulatory responsibilities? It certainly needs to maintain any records that might be needed for such purposes beyond just financial matters. I am not expert in US company law but I am sure there must be *some* things they would need to do. Hm. Yes. It needs to deal with subpoenas and other irritations, for instance. But this is a bit like saying "you are responsible for staying wet while in water". I can't think of text at the moment S3.1, para 3: This para states that signing powers will be delegated to the IAD up to some specified limit. Who has signing powers beyond this? This is just part of a much wider point about the actual powers of the IETF/IAOC and the relationship with ISOC which I will discuss at the end of these notes. The text at the moment doesn't say exactly that - it says that "we'll work it out".. I don't know what more it CAN say S3.1: I think this whole section should be much clearer about exactly what powers are delegated to the IAD to make commitments, as opposed to just negotiating: ISOC executes the contracts but the IAD will want to know that ISOC is a rubber stamp/back stop for this process and is not going to start second guessing him if he operates within the parameters set for him. This is related to the long discussion on Issue 739. There is also the potential for dispute between IAOC and IAD/ISOC which is not really addressed. Not sure what to add here, if anything - this will have to be worked out in practical terms, and the IAOC will have to work out the details in cooperation with the ISOC President. Should there be specific language? s3.4: It would be nice to see a requirement that minutes were published in a set period or at least in a timely fashion after meetings, rather than just regularly. Suggest s/regularly/in a timely fashion/. Easy change s4: While there are no hard rules regarding how the IAB and the IESG should select members of the IAOC, such appointees need not be current IAB or IESG members (and probably should not be, if only to avoid overloading the existing leadership). The IAB and IESG should choose people with some knowledge of contracts and financial procedures, who are familiar with the administrative support needs of the IAB, the IESG, or the IETF standards process. The IAB and IESG should follow a fairly open process for these selections, perhaps with an open call for nominations or a period of public comment on the candidates. The procedure for IAB selection of ISOC Board of Trustees [RFC3677] might be a good model for how this could work. After the IETF gains some experience with IAOC selection, these selection mechanisms should be documented more formally. Given the comments in S3, para 1, should the appointees by 'regular members' of the IETF (i.e., people with a good track record of attending IETF meetings) as with NomCom members are t
Edits - #819 - Elwyn's editorials
There has apparently been no comments on these I thought I'd make a pass... Some thoughts: S1, para 3: s/Such support includes/The support for current work includes/ this works either way for me - "current" seems to say "the next sentences describe what is currently done, and the future may be different". Suggest that we accept the edit. S1, Para 3: 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. Given that IETF/IASA is operating as some sort of subsidiary of ISOC, I'm not sure that IASA can be ultimately responsible for anything. s/ultimately/day-to-day/ or some such? I'd go for just deleting "ultimately". The work may be contracted out, so it's not day-to-day, but "ultimately" is just trouble. S1, para 4: 'and met well' ? Nice thought but what does it *actually* mean? That we (the IETF) like the result? I would like this to stay, undefined as it is. S2.2: I know that US data protection laws and practices are not as well developed as European ones, but I think there ought to be some duty to protect the data and generate a suitable privacy policy, as well as keep it available. (Item 7). I think there should be - but don't see a good way of capturing it here. I'd let it go for now and try to instruct the IASA later S2.2: Should the IASA be responsible for ensuring that the IETF (especially if it is run as a subsidiary) fulfils its legal and regulatory responsibilities? It certainly needs to maintain any records that might be needed for such purposes beyond just financial matters. I am not expert in US company law but I am sure there must be *some* things they would need to do. Hm. Yes. It needs to deal with subpoenas and other irritations, for instance. But this is a bit like saying "you are responsible for staying wet while in water". I can't think of text at the moment S3.1, para 3: This para states that signing powers will be delegated to the IAD up to some specified limit. Who has signing powers beyond this? This is just part of a much wider point about the actual powers of the IETF/IAOC and the relationship with ISOC which I will discuss at the end of these notes. The text at the moment doesn't say exactly that - it says that "we'll work it out".. I don't know what more it CAN say S3.1: I think this whole section should be much clearer about exactly what powers are delegated to the IAD to make commitments, as opposed to just negotiating: ISOC executes the contracts but the IAD will want to know that ISOC is a rubber stamp/back stop for this process and is not going to start second guessing him if he operates within the parameters set for him. This is related to the long discussion on Issue 739. There is also the potential for dispute between IAOC and IAD/ISOC which is not really addressed. Not sure what to add here, if anything - this will have to be worked out in practical terms, and the IAOC will have to work out the details in cooperation with the ISOC President. Should there be specific language? s3.4: It would be nice to see a requirement that minutes were published in a set period or at least in a timely fashion after meetings, rather than just regularly. Suggest s/regularly/in a timely fashion/. Easy change s4: While there are no hard rules regarding how the IAB and the IESG should select members of the IAOC, such appointees need not be current IAB or IESG members (and probably should not be, if only to avoid overloading the existing leadership). The IAB and IESG should choose people with some knowledge of contracts and financial procedures, who are familiar with the administrative support needs of the IAB, the IESG, or the IETF standards process. The IAB and IESG should follow a fairly open process for these selections, perhaps with an open call for nominations or a period of public comment on the candidates. The procedure for IAB selection of ISOC Board of Trustees [RFC3677] might be a good model for how this could work. After the IETF gains some experience with IAOC selection, these selection mechanisms should be documented more formally. Given the comments in S3, para 1, should the appointees by 'regular members' of the IETF (i.e., people with a good track record of attending IETF meetings) as with NomCom members are their appointees? Actually previous discussion indicates that we do NOT want to impose such a requirement - the people who know how to supervise a business construct like IASA are not the same people who know how to design an efficient transport protocol. So we want to have this open for "getting the right people", I think. Makes sense? Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
