[IFWP] [Fwd: Oslo meeting minutes]

1999-07-28 Thread Jeff Williams

All,

  FYI.  I thought that this would be VERY interesting reading.  It seems

that the IETF is suggesting that the MoU now be modified

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208





From:  "Susan R. Harris" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date:  Wed, 21 Jul 1999 08:30:16 -0400 (EDT)
To:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Below are Poisson minutes from the 45th IETF, Oslo.
--
Erik noted that consensus had been reached on the email list concerning
the "IETF Discussion List Charter," draft-ietf-poisson-listaup-00.txt.  He
will now issue a formal last call to the WG, and the document will be
submitted to the IESG as a BCP. 
--
Brian Carpenter reported that the IETF - IANA contract has now been
completed.  Randy Bush congratulated the IANA for its superior performance
for many years on behalf of the Internet.
--
The group accepted the changes present in version 2 of "IAB and IESG
Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating
and Recall Committees," draft-ietf-poisson-nomcom-v2-00.txt.  As reported
by Jim Galvin, those changes are:

- In honor of the upcoming Adelaide meeting, the accepted terminology
  for IETF meetings is now geographic, rather than temporal, i.e., we'll 
  now refer to each year's "first IETF,"  rather than the "Spring IETF." 
- Previously, all nomcom member terms began and ended during the
  first IETF meeting corresponding to the end of the term for which they
  were confirmed.  Now, it is possible to have member terms overlap
  during the IETF meeting, if both members agree that they would like the
  opportunity to work together during the conference.

I believe this was for IESG members, not nomcom members.  See Section
2, item 4.

- If a member of a previous nomcom wishes to communicate some sort
  of relevant information to the current committee, it is perfectly
  acceptable to do so.
- Any nomcom member may propose the addition of a non-voting
  advisor to participate in some or all of the deliberations of the
  committee. There was discussion as to whether there should be a limit of
  four advisors, and the consensus was that there should be no such limit.
  Similarly, any nomcom member may propose the addition of a non-voting
  liaison from other unrepresented organizations to participate in
  some or all of the deliberations of the committee.  
- The document now notes that the Chair selects the 10 voting volunteers 
  using an unbiased and fair method.  Donald Eastlake has kindly prepared an a
  additional document specifying how to make "fair" choices from the pool of 
  nominees.  This document is an informative reference, not a normative one.
- If the Chair finds that he or she will not be able to participate
  in the next year's nomcom activities, their replacement should come from
  the pool of prior years' Chairs, rather than from the current member
  body. This expands the pool of candidates, and ensures that a member 
  seat will not become vacant if a member is selected as the next Chair.

It exapnds the pool because it can come from EITHER the previous
year's voting members or previous nomcom chairs.

- The nomcom will now place less discretion on the Chair, and more on
  the committee itself.  For example, the entire committee will now
  approve the appointment of a liaison, rather than the Chair alone.
- The document now states explicitly that when someone becomes a
  member of the nomcom, they are no longer eligible for an open position.

Donald noted that the document does not explicitly outline procedures
for launching and carrying out a recall process.  It was decided to move
this discussion to the mailing list.  If considerable discussion ensues,
the issue will be treated separately from the rest of the draft to ensure
the draft's timely publication.  If there is little or no comment,
appropriate language concerning recall procedures will be added to the
draft.  
--
Scott Bradner provided a status update on the ICANN Protocol Supporting
Organization (PSO), which is being created by an MOU among ICANN and an
international group of standards development organizations (SDO's).  (See
"A Proposal for an MOU-Based ICANN Protocol Support Organization,"
draft-ietf-poisson-mou-pso-00.txt.)  By way of background, Scott briefly
outlined the history of the PSO, which provides for technical review of
proposals that come before ICANN.  The PSO cannot tell the SDO's how they
should set standards; rather, its role is to facilitate discussion between
two SDO's if a dispute arises between them.

One of the issues discussed at the Minneapolis IETF was the organizational
relationship between the PSO and 

[IFWP] [Fwd: Oslo meeting minutes]

1999-07-21 Thread Jeff Williams

All,

  Some of you might find this interesting especially the PSO
presentation that Scott did in Oslo.

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208




Below are Poisson minutes from the 45th IETF, Oslo.
--
Erik noted that consensus had been reached on the email list concerning
the "IETF Discussion List Charter," draft-ietf-poisson-listaup-00.txt.  He
will now issue a formal last call to the WG, and the document will be
submitted to the IESG as a BCP. 
--
Brian Carpenter reported that the IETF - IANA contract has now been
completed.  Randy Bush congratulated the IANA for its superior performance
for many years on behalf of the Internet.
--
The group accepted the changes present in version 2 of "IAB and IESG
Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating
and Recall Committees," draft-ietf-poisson-nomcom-v2-00.txt.  As reported
by Jim Galvin, those changes are:

- In honor of the upcoming Adelaide meeting, the accepted terminology
  for IETF meetings is now geographic, rather than temporal, i.e., we'll 
  now refer to each year's "first IETF,"  rather than the "Spring IETF." 
- Previously, all nomcom member terms began and ended during the
  first IETF meeting corresponding to the end of the term for which they
  were confirmed.  Now, it is possible to have member terms overlap
  during the IETF meeting, if both members agree that they would like the
  opportunity to work together during the conference.
- If a member of a previous nomcom wishes to communicate some sort
  of relevant information to the current committee, it is perfectly
  acceptable to do so.
- Any nomcom member may propose the addition of a non-voting
  advisor to participate in some or all of the deliberations of the
  committee. There was discussion as to whether there should be a limit of
  four advisors, and the consensus was that there should be no such limit.
  Similarly, any nomcom member may propose the addition of a non-voting
  liaison from other unrepresented organizations to participate in
  some or all of the deliberations of the committee.  
- The document now notes that the Chair selects the 10 voting volunteers 
  using an unbiased and fair method.  Donald Eastlake has kindly prepared an a
  additional document specifying how to make "fair" choices from the pool of 
  nominees.  This document is an informative reference, not a normative one.
- If the Chair finds that he or she will not be able to participate
  in the next year's nomcom activities, their replacement should come from
  the pool of prior years' Chairs, rather than from the current member
  body. This expands the pool of candidates, and ensures that a member 
  seat will not become vacant if a member is selected as the next Chair.
- The nomcom will now place less discretion on the Chair, and more on
  the committee itself.  For example, the entire committee will now
  approve the appointment of a liaison, rather than the Chair alone.
- The document now states explicitly that when someone becomes a
  member of the nomcom, they are no longer eligible for an open position.

Donald noted that the document does not explicitly outline procedures
for launching and carrying out a recall process.  It was decided to move
this discussion to the mailing list.  If considerable discussion ensues,
the issue will be treated separately from the rest of the draft to ensure
the draft's timely publication.  If there is little or no comment,
appropriate language concerning recall procedures will be added to the
draft.  
--
Scott Bradner provided a status update on the ICANN Protocol Supporting
Organization (PSO), which is being created by an MOU among ICANN and an
international group of standards development organizations (SDO's).  (See
"A Proposal for an MOU-Based ICANN Protocol Support Organization,"
draft-ietf-poisson-mou-pso-00.txt.)  By way of background, Scott briefly
outlined the history of the PSO, which provides for technical review of
proposals that come before ICANN.  The PSO cannot tell the SDO's how they
should set standards; rather, its role is to facilitate discussion between
two SDO's if a dispute arises between them.

One of the issues discussed at the Minneapolis IETF was the organizational
relationship between the PSO and ICANN.  It was determined that the PSO
would be a part of ICANN, not a separate organization.  With this and many
other matters resolved, a proposal describing the PSO was submitted to
ICANN, which published the proposal for public comment.  The proposal was
then approved by the ICANN board, and the next step was to work out the
MOU.

The group discussed how much advance notice