Agree with Joel here.
I would hate to see someone "appeal" an IAD decision because they
happened to disagree with it. That would make the job impossible.
There probably are some things that should be subject to appeal. I
don't know what they would be. If we can not list them, I don't
think we
> > Yes. I have a feeling that even with the BCP approved by the IESG
> > and by an ISOC Board motion, we would still need a piece of paper with
> > ink signatures - it might only say that the IETF and ISOC agree to the
> > terms of the BCP - it might also contain termination clauses about
> > mone
--On torsdag, desember 02, 2004 15:32:59 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Harald indicated that process BCP approval is indicated by an indication
in the ISOC BoT minutes that the BCP was acceptable.
I have a slight problem with minutes as the criteria.
Sorry if I confused.
the only important po
In some other argument in some alternate universe, I said about the appeals
issue:
I see three alternatives:
- Individual decisions of the IAOC cannot be appealed/reviewed by anyone
- We invent an entirely new process from scratch just for IAOC matters
- We funnel appeals against IAOC into the ex
--On torsdag, desember 02, 2004 18:02:16 +0100 Henrik Levkowetz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not sure if the current text clearly implies that tools created
for the IASA by a contractor, and data collected for the IASA by a
contractor shall be openly available.
I think the IETF needs the power
--On torsdag, desember 02, 2004 20:19:53 +0100 "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Scott writes:
draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-01 section 4 also says
The members of the IAOC choose their own chair each year using a
consensus mechanism of their choosing. Any appointed voting member
o
on 2004-12-03 9:25 am Harald Tveit Alvestrand said the following:
>
> --On torsdag, desember 02, 2004 18:02:16 +0100 Henrik Levkowetz
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure if the current text clearly implies that tools created
>> for the IASA by a contractor, and data collected for the
Carl Malamud wrote:
2.2.6 currently reads:
The right to use any intellectual property rights created by any IASA-related or
IETF activity may not be withheld or limited in any way by ISOC from the IETF.
I suggest inserting the word "irrevocable" before the word "right." That
covers us
in the
Carl Malamud wrote:
Yes. I have a feeling that even with the BCP approved by the IESG
and by an ISOC Board motion, we would still need a piece of paper with
ink signatures - it might only say that the IETF and ISOC agree to the
terms of the BCP - it might also contain termination clauses about
mone
--On fredag, desember 03, 2004 10:19:23 +0100 Henrik Levkowetz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What about this text, (added to 2.2.6):
"As a matter of principle the IAOC and IAD should ensure that any
contracts for IASA clearly designate that any software, databases,
and websites developed s
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In thinking about this, I think about the fungibility of funds.
By having a common account, cash flow issues that might be an issue at
various points of the year can be dealt with more easily. For example
if funds are earmarked for meeting fees, but collections have not
Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
Can we have other peoples opinion on this topic as well?
Scott's change makes sense to me
Brian
Bert
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 16:31
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL P
I agree with Joel, I think.
The IAD is a manager. When you disagree with a manager's decision,
you complain to the next manager up (the IAOC). We don't need
to write that down.
The IAOC is a community appointed body - so we do need a
community process; that's either a recall, or posibly a restricte
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Brian suggests:
Maybe we need a much more restricted right of appeal. Strawperson:
Decisions of the IAOC are subject to appeal exclusively on the grounds
that they have materially damaged correct execution of the IETF
standards process [RFC2026]. They follow the appeals p
Eric Rescorla wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I tend to think that we should go into this arrangement with an
attitude of trust. Certainly we should try to get the document as
specific and accurate as possible, and should leave open the process
for future updates to the BCP, but I do not think w
Avri and others,
Let me try to explain what we are trying to capture.
But first, I do agree that IASA/IAOC should meet the admin
needs of the whole IETF (and that also includes the IRTF).
IAB and certainly IESG members interact with the admin
support functions on a daily basis. They get exposed
There has been a suggestion that we may need some more wording on
startup phase. Not clear exactly what might be needed. Send text
if you feel additions are needed.
I don't think so. I think the IAOC may need to vary procedures during
startup, but we shouldn't over-design.
The variance clause that I suggested has been inserted in section 5
on funding. I think it should apply more generally, and should
be placed as the second paragraph of section 3, slightly
modified (s/the/any/)
Disclaimer: The IAOC is authorized to vary any procedures for legal,
accounting or
On balance I think this whole paragraph should be deleted.
It's self-evident that the IAD can ask for advice, and it doesn't
need to be documented.
3.2 IAD Committees
The IAD may constitute special-purpose, chartered committees to bring
in expertise (on topics such as finance, IETF process,
7. ISOC Responsibilities for IASA
...
Independence: The IASA should be financially and legally distinct
from other ISOC activities.
Since it's a unit of ISOC, it can't be legally distinct. We have discussion
elsewhere of the financial arrangements. So I would reduce this sentence to
In
Gert asks:
Here is a new proposed text:
3.4 Relationship of the IAOC to Existing IETF Leadership
The IAOC is directly accountable to the IETF community for the
performance of the IASA. However, the nature of the IAOC's work
involves treating the IESG and IAB as major internal cust
On 2-dec-04, at 9:54, Simon Leinen wrote:
But all of this is only delaying the inevitable (not that that can't
be useful sometimes): at some point, we need to move away from the
premise that all default-free routers must know about all reachable
prefixes.
But isn't this the *definition* of a defau
FYI
I have added (thanks Brian)
IASA IETF Administrative Support Activity,
defined by this document.
Bert
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Harald sez:
if "decisions of the IAOC can be appealed" rather reads:
--
If someone believes that the IAOC has violated the IAOC rules and
procedures, he or she can ask the IETF leadership to investigate the
matter, using the same p
Seems like a reasonable way to approach it.
a.
On 3 dec 2004, at 09.19, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
In some other argument in some alternate universe, I said about the
appeals issue:
I see three alternatives:
- Individual decisions of the IAOC cannot be appealed/reviewed by
anyone
- We invent
Brian, thanks for providing some scenarios here. Very helpful for
those of us who haven't been on IESG/IAB/ISOC BoT, and are trying to
visualize what the words mean.
I think Harald's followup is helpful here - the existing IESG/IAB are
already part of the "appeals from the community" food chain
W.r.t.
> I think a global s/deposited in/credited to/ will do the
change made as I think I already posted earlier.
> right thing, given Rob's explanation of "divisional
> accounting", and using "account" in the sense of
> "what's accounted for".
>
> We do have consensus that the IASA has to acc
I agree. The redudancy should stay... It is just a single sentence,
and it could save us from later misunderstandings that would be
incredibly difficult to unravel.
I saw one message that asked whether the IAOC can remove/replace
their chair mid-year. Does that need to be clarified? What is
> I agree. The redudancy should stay... It is just a single sentence,
> and it could save us from later misunderstandings that would be
> incredibly difficult to unravel.
I do not see how it makes anything clearer to say "only appointed
members" then to go on to point out that non-appointed
this formulation works for me.
thanks.
a.
On 3 dec 2004, at 11.16, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
3.4 Relationship of the IAOC to Existing IETF Leadership
The IAOC is directly accountable to the IETF community for the
performance of the IASA. However, the nature of the IAOC's work
involve
Hi Brian,
At 10:38 AM +0100 12/3/04, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On the other hand, transparency requires the ability to inspect
the accounts that are pertinent to the IETF, its budget vs it
projected expenditure vs its actual expenditures. This can, I
believe, be adequately handled by so-called
Folks,
Good stuff here, but...
I'd like to put in a plug for making it a mandatory* principle
that the IETF end up in no-restrictions possession of data contents from
the databases and websites from any contractors.
This is different from specifics about what tools are used, open source
etc, an
--On fredag, desember 03, 2004 08:30:42 -0500 Margaret Wasserman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I agree. The redudancy should stay... It is just a single sentence, and
it could save us from later misunderstandings that would be incredibly
difficult to unravel.
I saw one message that asked whether
Inline, personal opinion
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand
> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 10:34
> To: Henrik Levkowetz; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Carl Malamud; Scott Bradner
> Subject: Re: Adminrest: created IPR
>
RFC 2850 section 3.1:
3.1 IAB chair
The members of the IAB shall select one of its full members to serve
as the chair of the IAB, with all of the duties and responsibilities
normally associated with such a position. The term of the IAB chair
shall be one year, with no restriction on renew
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Hi Brian,
At 10:38 AM +0100 12/3/04, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On the other hand, transparency requires the ability to inspect the
accounts that are pertinent to the IETF, its budget vs it projected
expenditure vs its actual expenditures. This can, I believe, be
adequa
fwiw - I agree with Bert's suggestions and worries
---
From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Henrik Levkowetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Carl Malamud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Scott Bradner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject:
> "Harald" == Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Harald> --On fredag, desember 03, 2004 10:19:23 +0100 Henrik
Harald> Levkowetz
Harald> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What about this text, (added to 2.2.6):
>>
>> "As a matter of principle the IAOC and
I am afraid this is meaningless unless this is insurred and warranted by a
third party and the money in escrow, what a Bank is for. I am even afraid
this is illegal wording in the way you intend it. Whatever the
irrevocability ISOC may sign, ISOC is bound by legal and tax priority
obligations.
> "Harald" == Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Harald> In some other argument in some alternate universe, I said
Harald> about the appeals issue:
>> I see three alternatives:
>>
>> - Individual decisions of the IAOC cannot be appealed/reviewed
>> by
makes sense to me
Scott
---
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 11:24:57 +0100
From: Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The variance clause that I suggested has been inserted in section 5
on funding. I think it should apply more generally, and should
be placed as the second paragrap
on 2004-12-03 3:30 pm Wijnen, Bert (Bert) said the following:
> Inline, personal opinion
>
...
>> --On fredag, desember 03, 2004 10:19:23 +0100 Henrik Levkowetz
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > What about this text, (added to 2.2.6):
>> >
>> >"As a matter of principle the IAOC and
I agree (I trust that we do not have to list everything the IAD is
permitted to do - it could be a long list)
Scott
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 11:27:19 +0100
From: Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: iasa-bcp-01 - IAD committees
On balance I think this whole paragr
Since Harald listed this as a NIT and since what he states
makes sense to me, can we agree on this:
> Nit: I think we should remove "decisions of IAOC members". As currently
> written, IAOC members have no individual power or responsibility; all
> decisions are IAOC decisions - and I think it sh
--On 3. desember 2004 11:24 +0100 Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
The variance clause that I suggested has been inserted in section 5
on funding. I think it should apply more generally, and should
be placed as the second paragraph of section 3, slightly
modified (s/the/any/)
Disc
When reading sect 3 1st para again, I found:
The IASA structure is designed to ensure accountability and
transparency of the IETF administrative and fiscal activities to the
IETF community. The IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC)
directs and oversees the IASA. The IAOC con
good catch - I support Bert's suggestion of "members"
Scott
---
From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Adminrest: section 4
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 17:00:45 +0100
When
> The termination clause is in section 7 of the -01 draft and seems fine
> to me.
>
Me to.
> I'm not sure about dispute resolution. We surely don't want to specify
> applicable jurisdiction or predefine an arbitrator, do we? I'm
> inclined to leave it out.
>
I'd personally leave it out. Just
Hang on... are we not getting too detailed again, at the
risk of over-constraining ourselves?
As has been mentioned on this thread -- we (IETF) may well want
to take advantage of non-open-source software, if it's the
most effective & efficient choice. I'm thinking specifically
of contracting with
No, I think that as a principle that prevents us from inadvertently
or short-sightedly putting ourself into a locked-in position vis-a-vis
a contractor, this kind of statement of principle is exactly what
we need.
Henrik
on 2004-12-03 5:45 pm Leslie Daigle said the following:
> Hang on...
Henrik,
I believe that's true of the principle, expressed this way:
[I wrote:]
>>Taking the step back -- the principle was that the IETF should
>>retain the rights to, ability to access, and ability to move
>>the data it creates.Period.
I (still) believe that the text that was proposed (detaili
Hi Leslie,
on 2004-12-03 6:19 pm Leslie Daigle said the following:
> Henrik,
>
> I believe that's true of the principle, expressed this way:
>
> [I wrote:]
> >>Taking the step back -- the principle was that the IETF should
> >>retain the rights to, ability to access, and ability to move
> >>t
> > It's kind of a good fences makes good neighbors kind of thing.
>
> but Frost was arguing just the reverse
>
> http://www.bartleby.com/118/2.html
>
> (in case anyone is confused - in pointing the above out I am not
> saying anything about the need for a Pre-nup agreement in this case -
> ju
The specific term is "work for hire". All data, created software, etc must
be considered the result of "work for hire" and as such is the property of
ISOC in trust for the IETF.
At 08:58 AM 12/3/2004, Allison Mankin wrote:
Folks,
Good stuff here, but...
I'd like to put in a plug for making it
"Harald" == Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Harald> this works for me (my only problem is stylistic - it's
Harald> somewhat long for a principle, so may fit better in the
Harald> "details" sections, if a place can be found for it).
I like the spirit of this as well.
> The specific term is "work for hire". All data, created software, etc must
> be considered the result of "work for hire" and as such is the property of
> ISOC in trust for the IETF.
>
I agree, and would simply add "whenever possible". Remember, this is
not the contract, it is guidance to th
> "Margaret" == Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> "Harald" == Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> writes:
Harald> this works for me (my only problem is stylistic - it's
Harald> somewhat long for a principle, so may fit better in the
Hara
mailing list__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On 3 dec 2004, at 16.28, Sam Hartman wrote:
2) Allow appeals to be made but set some bar for an appeal; perhaps
appeals from IAOC members are always accepted, but appeals from the
community require say 10 signatures.
Since the IAOC is the oversight body, why would they need to appeal the
act
While I support the use of open source software whenever possible, it
seems too restrictive to mandate it in the BCP on the IASA operation.
I am not even sure that this level of detail belongs in this doc at
all, though it may belong in a set of recommendations to the IAOC.
a.
On 3 dec 2004,
> "avri" == avri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
avri> And I don't think we want to get into a situation where we
avri> have one member of the IAOC appealing the actions of the
avri> IAOC.
I do. Or rather in cases where that happens, I'd treat the appeal
very seriously. Being reaso
OK, I am open to the idea. And I suppose that the current appeal
mechanisms would allow it.
But in that case I do have a problem with making the barrier higher for
appeals originating from a non IOAC member. While I can see arguments
for not removing an IAOC's member's right of appeal, I don'
> "avri" == avri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
avri> OK, I am open to the idea. And I suppose that the current
avri> appeal mechanisms would allow it.
avri> But in that case I do have a problem with making the barrier
avri> higher for appeals originating from a non IOAC member
BRian writes:
> IMHO, with the existing separation clause in section 7, and *if*
> the two "irrevocable" and "irrevocably" I suggested in other
> messages are added, we don't in fact need a separate agreement.
>
I like (personal opinion) this.
Bert
> (I have changed my mind on this.)
>
> B
Inline
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Brian E Carpenter
> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 11:33
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: iasa-bcp-01 - ISOC support
>
>
> > 7. ISOC Responsibilities for IASA
> ...
> >Independence: The IA
Hi all,
Can any on tell me that whether there exist some SIP
stack those use xml tags in messageing format. Because
right now, As far as I know, most of the intermediate
infrastructure is using plain text for request and
response(without any xml tags). So if we use xml tags,
then there will be a p
66 matches
Mail list logo
