At 00:21 20/01/2005, Leslie Daigle wrote:
Interesting...
To the extent that the IAD and IAOC are dealing with
decisions about implementing requirements, I agree.
To the extent that the IAD and IAOC are applying judgement
to interpret the "best needs of the IETF" (i.e., determining
those requiremen
At 06:21 PM 1/19/2005, Leslie Daigle wrote:
Interesting...
To the extent that the IAD and IAOC are dealing with
decisions about implementing requirements, I agree.
To the extent that the IAD and IAOC are applying judgement
to interpret the "best needs of the IETF" (i.e., determining
those requireme
On Wednesday, January 19, 2005 10:52:20 -0800 Fred Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
If the BCP is the IETF's request to ISOC, then the agreement between IETF
and ISOC is a different document, and the ISOC Board should pass a
resolution supporting *that* document. If the BCP is the agreement
betw
Why so many people are interested in DNS governance?
Because they hardly know how it works and assume a lot of things which
are wrong!
I would be curious to know if any of these people on the list you gave
ever attended an ICANN or IETF meeting. Have you ever been to such meeting.
Do you know t
Interesting...
To the extent that the IAD and IAOC are dealing with
decisions about implementing requirements, I agree.
To the extent that the IAD and IAOC are applying judgement
to interpret the "best needs of the IETF" (i.e., determining
those requirements), I disagree. I think it's a little
hea
Hi all,
I just wanted to update you about open on-line discussions now
underway seeking input on Internet governance issues.
This is facilitated by APDIP and threads to the discussions are also
archived for easy reference. The forum opened on January 13 and runs until
February 17.
I'd encourage you
At 09:33 AM 01/19/05 -0800, Ted Hardie wrote:
Again, I don't have any concerns about how these issues are met, but I
want us to be very, very clear on what we are asking for from ISOC.
I think also that we need to be very sure that we know what the BCP is.
What your words above - and other commen
Harald asks if "no change" on "firing the whole group" is OK
its ok by me
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
harald suggets
The IAOC attempts to reach consensus on all decisions.
If the IAOC cannot achieve a consensus decision, then
the IAOC may decide by voting.
looks good to me
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/l
Harald asks:
2.5 Effective Date for Commencement of IASA
The procedures in this document shall become operational
after this document has been approved by the process defined in
BCP 9 [RFC2026] , including its acceptance as an IETF
I'm glad we're drilling down into this level of specificity. I sit on
the ISOC board and also on the IASA Transition Team, so I'm reading this
with both my ISOC hat and a "proto-IAOC" hat on. (But I'm speaking just
for myself, not others on the board or the transition team.)
We can try to tig
At 5:12 PM +0100 1/19/05, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
I *think* this is a "not a problem" thing I believe the intent
is that IETF can say "we think we need 6 months reserve for our
stuff", and ISOC can say "that's no problem - we have general
reserves that are larger than your 6 months +
At 4:48 PM +0100 1/19/05, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
Harald responds to Lynn
> Lynn,
I actually disagree here.
The mind-picture I think we want to establish through using "accounts" is
"rows of numbers that can be added up to get totals" - we want to know what
it's costing, and where the money
In #787, Margaret raised a couple of terminology questions related to the
terms:
- IASA Accounts
- IETF accounts
- ISOC Standards pillar
In discussion, it seems clear that "IETF accounts" is a mistake, and should
be changed to "IASA accounts" wherever it occurs.
"IASA accounts" should probably
Version -04 says the following about firing IAOC members:
IAOC members are subject to recall in the event that an IAOC member
abrogates his or her duties or acts against the best interests of the
IETF community. Any appointed IAOC member, including those appointed
by the IAB, IESG or ISOC
After all the wordsmithing, I'm calling this a consensus for the relevant
paragraph in section 3.4:
OLD (version -04):
The IAOC attempts to reach all decisions unanimously. If the IAOC
cannot achieve a unanimous decision, the IAOC decides by voting.
NEW:
The IAOC attempts to reach consensus
Based on the discussion so far, I conclude that we have a very rough
consensus on this point - that an ISOC board resolution accepting ISOC's
responsibilities under this BCP is a reasonable way to go forward; I have
Eric and Pete stating that they're unhappy with this, but my sense is that
they
Hi Harald et al -
I apologize for chiming in on this so late, but I had hopes it would get
worked out without me pushing over apple carts.
I can't support this and I recommend deleting this section in its entirety.
My cut on this:
The decisions of the IAD should be subject to review (and in some
Hmm. I think this bothers me a lot unless
a) unsuccessful bidders and their agents
and
b) unsuccessful job candidates
are explicitly excluded. Otherwise, every time
the IASA awards a contract or hires somebody, they are
exposed to public attack by the unsuccessful.
In general, people do not choose
I prefer Margaret's wording but could live with Harld's wording.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--On onsdag, januar 19, 2005 07:46:00 -0800 Fred Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
The second paragraph of Section 5.6 reads (in the -04 version of the
draft)
The IASA expects ISOC to build and provide that operational reserve,
through whatever mechanisms ISOC deems appropriate: line of c
I have not been paying close attention to the debate over this section
of the BCP before, so I may be covering a point that's been made before.
I think there will necessarily be a mixture of formal and informal
processes at work once the IASA is in operation. The IAOC is intended
to be at once
Hmm. I think this bothers me a lot unless
a) unsuccessful bidders and their agents
and
b) unsuccessful job candidates
are explicitly excluded. Otherwise, every time
the IASA awards a contract or hires somebody, they are
exposed to public attack by the unsuccessful.
Brian
Margaret Wasserman wrote
Harald responds to Lynn
> --On 16. januar 2005 19:34 -0500 "Lynn St.Amour" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> The following three terms are used in this document, and it is not
> >> clear if there is intended to be any difference between them:
> >>
> >>- IASA accounts (or IASA budget)
> >
> > F
The ISOC board has been following the development of the Structure of the
IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) Internet Draft and some of the
board members have been participating in the discussion. The board feels
that this draft is something that the board can readily agree to support
Sorry, I somehow omitted a line in my proposed wording:
3.5 Decision review
In the case where someone believes that a decision of the IAD or the IAOC
violates published policy or goes against the best interests of the iETF
he or she may ask for a formal review of the decision by sending e-mail
to t
Okay, Harald indicated to me privately that I should be more specific
about my objections to the current wording and offer some
alternative, so here goes...
I do not object to the use of the term "review" instead of "appeal".
However, I do object to the current wording proposed by Harald for two
Harald explains
> > Answered requests for review and their responses are made public.
> > ---
> >
> > why not make public all requests (i.e. remove "Answered" from the
> > last line)
>
> because:
> 1) some requests are an embarassment to the
On 1/19/2005 05:47, Harald Tveit Alvestrand allegedly wrote:
Trying to close this item, which is not resolved in the -04 draft:
I believe that the list discussion has converged on very rough
consensus (Sam and Avri being the people who worry that we're building
a DoS attack defense that we don't
--On onsdag, januar 19, 2005 07:21:40 -0500 Scott Bradner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Answered requests for review and their responses are made public.
---
why not make public all requests (i.e. remove "Answered" from the
last line)
because:
1
Harald writes:
> I suggested on Jan 13, replacing the last 3 paragraphs of section 3.4:
> --
> 3.5 Decision review
>
> In the case where someone questions a decision of the IAD or the
> IAOC, he or she may ask for a formal review of the decision
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Trying to close this item, which is not resolved in the -04 draft:
I believe that the list discussion has converged on very rough consensus
(Sam and Avri being the people who worry that we're building a DoS
attack defense that we don't need, but Brian, Scott and Joh
Margaret notes
It seems strange, IMO, to be so worried about DoS attacks through the
appeal process we've been using this process for several years for
IESG and WG decisions and haven't experienced that sort of problem...
the current appeals process does not apply to commercial decisions
su
Harald suggests:
--
3.5 Decision review
In the case where someone questions a decision of the IAD or the
IAOC, he or she may ask for a formal review of the decision.
The request for review is addressed to the person or body that mad
Is this intended to replace the section on appeals? In other words,
will we have this review mechanism _instead_ of the ability to
actually appeal a decision of the IAOC?
If so, I'm not comfortable with that. I understand that there needs
to be some limit on the action that is taken in the ev
Trying to close this item, which is not resolved in the -04 draft:
I believe that the list discussion has converged on very rough consensus
(Sam and Avri being the people who worry that we're building a DoS attack
defense that we don't need, but Brian, Scott and John Klensin, at least,
strongly
36 matches
Mail list logo
