> "Eric" == Eric Rescorla writes:
Eric> bad decisions we have a mechanism for unseating them.
Eric> 3. Decisions of the IAOC should be appealable (following the
Eric> usual 2026 appeal chain) on the sole grounds that the IASA's
Eric> processes were not followed. Those decisio
Passed the question to Jorge.
If "the IAD shall ensure that such contract grants to ISOC the perpetual,
irrevocable right, on behalf of IASA and IETF, to use, display, distribute,
reproduce, modify and create derivatives of such Data." doesn't cover
sublicensing (as in "letting others use to our
> "Leslie" == Leslie Daigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Leslie> Sam,
Leslie> Let me first take another stab at recap'ing the discussion
Leslie> that lead to my proposal for 3.5 and 3.6, and clarifying
Leslie> what I intend as a distinction between them.
Leslie> As I under
The following text largely tracks the message I posted to the IETF list
on Tuesday afternoon, but it differs primarily in that the set of
proposed additional IAOC Responsibilities (at the end of the message)
have been tightened up as well as expanded based on numerous comments
that I've received
Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "Eric" == Eric Rescorla writes:
>
> Eric> bad decisions we have a mechanism for unseating them.
>
> Eric> 3. Decisions of the IAOC should be appealable (following the
> Eric> usual 2026 appeal chain) on the sole grounds that the IASA's
>
This set of principles works for me.
a.
On 26 jan 2005, at 20.40, Eric Rescorla wrote:
With that in mind, I would like to suggest the following principles:
1. The IETF community should have input on the internal rules
set by the IASA and the IASA should be required to respond
to comments by t
Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think I can support your proposed text. I still don't
> understand what your proposed section 3.5 does and don't think I could
> go along with the plausable readings I'm coming up with for that text.
>
> I don't think your text does a good job of
At 1:25 PM +0100 1/26/05, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
Having seen some more reactions... I think we can solve
the "general Ledger Accounts" issue with a very simple
addition as follows:
As discussed with ISOC, funds managed by IASA shall
Sam,
Let me first take another stab at recap'ing the discussion that
lead to my proposal for 3.5 and 3.6, and clarifying what I
intend as a distinction between them.
As I understood them, John Klensin, Mike St.Johns, and others
were concerned about creating an IASA that could not or
operate without
> "Ted" == Ted Hardie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ted> At 6:23 PM -0500 1/26/05, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> I brought up the issue of sublicensing. Perhaps I missed
>> discussion in the flood of messages. Assuming I didn't, let me
>> try and prod people?
>>
>> Do people b
At 6:23 PM -0500 1/26/05, Sam Hartman wrote:
I brought up the issue of sublicensing. Perhaps I missed discussion
in the flood of messages. Assuming I didn't, let me try and prod people?
Do people believe the issue of sublicensing is not worth discussing or
are we all just unsure what to say about
I brought up the issue of sublicensing. Perhaps I missed discussion
in the flood of messages. Assuming I didn't, let me try and prod people?
Do people believe the issue of sublicensing is not worth discussing or
are we all just unsure what to say about it?
--Sam
__
I don't think I can support your proposed text. I still don't
understand what your proposed section 3.5 does and don't think I could
go along with the plausable readings I'm coming up with for that text.
I don't think your text does a good job of meeting the principles
Margaret tried to outline;
You gave an excellent argument why one should use "intellectual property"
and not the individual categories.
You forgot service marks, for one thing.
--On onsdag, januar 26, 2005 15:51:43 -0500 Dean Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Did you get a look at this below? It seems to have been lost
Did you get a look at this below? It seems to have been lost in the noise,
so I'll repost.
The notion of giving source code but retaining patent rights is not
entirely academic. Novell asserted (for a while anyway) that it never
transfered patents covering Unix to SCO. Some people/companies ar
--On onsdag, januar 26, 2005 12:30:13 -0500 Margaret Wasserman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--On Wednesday, 26 January, 2005 11:02 -0500 Margaret Wasserman
I just went back and looked at the text, and it appears, to my
chagrin, that after weeks of discussion about "preferred
outsourcing" and "RFP-
--On onsdag, januar 26, 2005 09:41:05 -0500 Scott Bradner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Harald quotes John and says
> Or, more generally, if the IAD is expected to act merely as a
> conduit for information between the IETF leadership and
> Neustar/Foretec, is the job description correct (at leas
--On onsdag, januar 26, 2005 09:32:41 -0500 Scott Bradner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Harald mentions in passing:
for instance, the transition team has
briefly considered the option of making "permanent institutional
memory" inthe form of archives a separate task that is carried out
outs
--On onsdag, januar 26, 2005 09:21:34 -0500 Scott Bradner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Harald sez:
- We will *share* with the community our opinion that this effort could
help achieve a transition with less conflict and uncertainty than going
straight from a CNRI-provided secretariat to an
Yes, still ok, I am still seeing those four words
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 1:34 PM
Subject: FW: Resolution? #787 terminology and issue 794 - naming of accounts
>> 5.1 Cost Center Accounting
>
I believe the scenarios you are outlining are certainly
possible. I don't (personally) believe that we can write
rules or process steps to make them impossible. I also
am concsiously saying "possible" without any prejudice
about "likelihood". That is -- I have no opinion about
the likelihood of
Hi John,
At 12:10 PM -0500 1/26/05, John C Klensin wrote:
Recognizing the textual problem that Margaret identified and
moving back to intent, sooner or later the IAD and IAOC need to
decide whether or not to issue one or more competitive RFPs for
some or all of the secretariat functions. My unders
--On Wednesday, 26 January, 2005 11:02 -0500 Margaret Wasserman
I just went back and looked at the text, and it appears, to my
chagrin, that after weeks of discussion about "preferred
outsourcing" and "RFP-based processes", we have "improved" the
language sufficiently to not prevent, even in princi
Avri,
I hear what you are saying. I retained the proposed text
for being obliged to respond only when direct by IAB/IESG
because people seemed to want it for rate limiting (i.e.,
preventing DoS). So, we can't just throw it out. We can
change it (entirely), but the empty set option does
not seem
--On Wednesday, 26 January, 2005 17:04 +0100 "Wijnen, Bert
(Bert)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John writes:
>>
>>
> ... snip a lot ..
>
>> I'd rather either
>>
>> * Fix the BCP to accommodate this case, i.e., to give
>> the IAOC the authority to accept unsolicited,
>> sole-s
--On Wednesday, 26 January, 2005 18:02 +0100 "Wijnen, Bert
(Bert)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scott writes
>>
>> > All we need to do is that as soon as we have IASA in place
>> > (we still need to approve the BCP first) that IASA then
>> > starts to prepare for RFPs and such and then the proc
Scott writes
>
> > All we need to do is that as soon as we have IASA in place (we
> > still need to approve the BCP first) that IASA then starts
> > to prepare for RFPs and such and then the process can start.
>
> the "prepare for RFPs" seems futile (or at least *very* premature)
> if NeuStar is
--On Wednesday, 26 January, 2005 11:02 -0500 Margaret Wasserman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 10:13 AM -0500 1/26/05, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
>> The situation you fear doesn't change at all. The draft
>> doesn't give the IAOC any authority to accept an unsolicited
>> proposal i
> All we need to do is that as soon as we have IASA in place (we
> still need to approve the BCP first) that IASA then starts
> to prepare for RFPs and such and then the process can start.
the "prepare for RFPs" seems futile (or at least *very* premature)
if NeuStar is to get a N-year agreement/co
Many thanks for the in-depth response.
--On Wednesday, 26 January, 2005 10:12 +0100 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(everything on which I think your response is completely
satisfactory snipped)
>...
>> (2) During the brief, and (I believe necessarily) very
>> indirect, discus
Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
...
All we need to do is that as soon as we have IASA in place (we
still need to approve the BCP first) that IASA then starts
to prepare for RFPs and such and then the process can start.
During that process, we are still subject to whatever
CNRI/Foretec/Neustar do, are w
Maybe I am naive, but the discussion I have seen on the list is not
actually about something the IETF can or should "approve". Reportedly,
ForeTec, CNRI, and Neustar are in negotiations. The IETF has no say in
such negotiations.
Reportedly, what has been asked is "will the IETF react badly to
I like this text. In any event, it seems much closer to what
the community seems to want than what we have in the revision 04
document. So I have included the text suggested by Leslie,
with the understanding that I have not yet seen Harald declare
consensus (seems early for that anyways).
In the r
John writes:
>
>
... snip a lot ..
> I'd rather either
>
> * Fix the BCP to accommodate this case, i.e., to give
> the IAOC the authority to accept unsolicited,
> sole-source proposals for outsourced operations if that
> seems appropriate to them, even if those proposals
At 10:13 AM -0500 1/26/05, John C Klensin wrote:
Hi John,
The situation you fear doesn't change at all. The draft doesn't
give the IAOC any authority to accept an unsolicited proposal in
the absence of an IAD-created, IAOC-approved, RFP and at least
the potential for competitive proposals against
John C Klensin suggested as one option:
* Fix the BCP to accommodate this case, i.e., to give
the IAOC the authority to accept unsolicited,
sole-source proposals for outsourced operations if that
seems appropriate to them, even if those proposals do
not fufil
Harald,
I think this is all to the good. Several specific comments
below.
--On Wednesday, 26 January, 2005 09:29 +0100 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John,
>
> attempting to take some higher-level process issues first,
> before answering questions in detail:
>
> The ques
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Brian,
... We probably want what
has happened in practice with most appeals to the IAB, i.e. an anlysis
of what went wrong and caused unhappiness, and advice and procedural
improvements to prevent the same mistake being repeated.
So I think the flavour is indeed m
Hi Spencer,
On 26 jan 2005, at 08.25, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
- And last: Even if there is an appeals chain, I don't think the IESG
and the IAB should be in it. We are supposed to be selected for the
wrong sort of competence.
Harald
I'm really not trying to muddy the waters here
--On Wednesday, 26 January, 2005 11:38 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John C Klensin wrote:
>
> [many things, including]
>
>> (1) The note indicates that "the Transition Team is favorably
>> inclined to consider a proposal from NeuStar for continuing
>> Secretariat servic
I included an issue number.
The text had just made it to the list before your repost.
So I have added the suggested wording with Haralds adjustment
to the revision 05.
Bert
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand
> Sen
Russ sez:
We want to keep it simple. However, a recall is serious. At a minimum, we
need to require that 2/3rd of the voters are present for the vote. If we
say that at least 2/3rd of those present must vote for removal, then an
'abstain' is essentially a vote to keep the chair in of
Harald quotes John and says
> Or, more generally, if the IAD is expected to act merely as a
> conduit for information between the IETF leadership and
> Neustar/Foretec, is the job description correct (at least for
> the duration of the Neustar arrangement) and does the job really
> require a
Harald mentions in passing:
for instance, the transition team has
briefly considered the option of making "permanent institutional memory" in
the form of archives a separate task that is carried out outside the
present "secretariat" framework - since Carl's reports indicate that this
Yes, that is still ok with me. It is the phrase
' the income, expenses, assets, and liabilities of the IASA'
that is critical to me. That tells me I will be able to see what I need to.
>From what Lynn says, 'general ledger' as defined by GAAP does not include this
information; rather it is the ra
Harald sez:
- We will *share* with the community our opinion that this effort could
help achieve a transition with less conflict and uncertainty than going
straight from a CNRI-provided secretariat to an open RFP process would.
is there any particular consensus determination mechanism en
Section 4 says:
>
> The Chair serves at the pleasure of the IAOC, and may be removed from
> that position at any time by a two thirds vote of the voting
> membership of the IAOC.
>
This means that 6 of 8 votes are needed, and one of the voters is the chair
himself. I would be more comfortable wit
> If we assume that the IETF will never be interested in preventing others
> from using its software, we can remove the stuff that says ".. and ISOC
> will not utilize or access. without the written consent of the IAD".
> Jorge - see any problems with removing this?
JLC> No problem.
>We sho
Bert resuggests:
5.1 Cost Center Accounting
Funds managed by the IASA shall be accounted for in a separate set of
general ledger accounts within the IASA Cost Center. In the remainder
of this document, these general ledger accounts are termed "IASA
accounts". A periodic summary of
Bert suggests:
As discussed with ISOC, funds managed by IASA shall
be accounted for in a separate set of general ledger
accounts within the Cost Center IASA.
In the remainder of this docum
This doesn't seem to have made it to the list...
-- Forwarded Message --
Date: mandag, januar 24, 2005 15:53:48 -0500
From: "Contreras, Jorge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Harald Tveit Alvestrand
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: L
Avri, the way I read Leslies text is that the IAD and IAOC darn
better respond to normal queries and questions and that they
also document the questions and answers in a public place.
If they just frivorously ignore such questions, then it is clear
that thye (IAD and IAOC) are NOT doing their job
Rob my co-editor even improved the text somehwat for better
readability and clarity.So it now is:
The IAOC determines what IETF administrative functions are to be
performed, and how or where they should be performed (whether
internally within the IASA or by outside organizations), so as t
- And last: Even if there is an appeals chain, I don't think the
IESG and the IAB should be in it. We are supposed to be selected for
the wrong sort of competence.
Harald
I'm really not trying to muddy the waters here, but
- I agree with Harald on this point, for exactly the re
Hi Harald,
On 26 jan 2005, at 02.23, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Avri,
--On tirsdag, januar 25, 2005 23:44:09 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Leslie,
This formulation is still of the form that does not give the IETF
community a direct voice in the review and appeal mechanisms for the
IAOC.
I
Revision 5 is ok with me.
Tom Petch
>
> This is what I have in my edit buffer for revision 05
>
>
>
> As discussed with ISOC, funds managed by IASA
shall
> be accounted for in a separate set of accounts
> wi
Sorry, needed another sip of coffee to wake up.
The final text I have is slightly different (thanks to
my co-editor Rob for clarifying) than below,
namely:
5.1 Cost Center Accounting
Funds managed by the IASA shall be accounted for in a separate set of
general ledger accounts within the I
Having seen some more reactions... I think we can solve
the "general Ledger Accounts" issue with a very simple
addition as follows:
As discussed with ISOC, funds managed by IASA shall
be accounted for in a separate set of genera
Brian,
... We probably want what
has happened in practice with most appeals to the IAB, i.e. an anlysis
of what went wrong and caused unhappiness, and advice and procedural
improvements to prevent the same mistake being repeated.
So I think the flavour is indeed more review than appeal. But as
> I have left the change to "General Ledger Accounts" out for the
> time being, because I am not sure we have consensus on that yet
> (even though ISOC prefers that terminology).
I would think it is a generally good idea to use the legal terms to
reduce confusion so I see no justification to not u
Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
So... not 100% sure I captured the result ciorrectly.
This is what we have in rev 04:
Funds managed by IASA shall be accounted for in a
separate set of accounts.
Separate financial r
John C Klensin wrote:
[many things, including]
(1) The note indicates that "the Transition Team is favorably
inclined to consider a proposal from NeuStar for continuing
Secretariat services...". Does that language imply that the
Transition Team believes that it has the authority to accept
such a p
Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
I now have this text:
The IAOC is expected to determine what IETF
administrative functions are to be performed, and how or
where they should be performed (e.g., internally to the
IASA or by outside or
Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
W.r.t. to latest suggested text by Harald:
...
So then it would become:
NEW(2)
Although the IAD is an ISOC employee, he or she works under the
direction of the IAOC. A committee of the IAOC is responsible for
hiring and firing of the IAD, for reviewing the performan
Sam Hartman wrote:
Our processes have tended to always have review as the first step in
an appeal. I believe that is important.
Margaret's principle (5) which I agree with is consistent with your
definition of appeal although I'm not sure I would use that word.
RFC2026 explicitly empowers the IAB
In this note, I'll attempt to answer each of your questions as they were
written. Note - these are my opinions only; I have NOT cleared them with
the rest of the transition team.
Snipping off the introductory material:
In particular, Leslie's note raises the following questions for
me.
If other
John,
attempting to take some higher-level process issues first, before answering
questions in detail:
The question Neustar asked the transition team could be roughly represented
as "If we make this deal with CNRI, will the IETF community think that we
tried to help, or be mad at us for interfe
67 matches
Mail list logo
