Fred Baker wrote:
A thought...
your list below eliminates five out of the ten of the IAOC. The
remaining folks include the IAOC secretary (whom I would suggest
should also be ineligible), a member selected by the IETF nomcom, the
member selected by the IESG, and the member selected
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Leslie Daigle
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org; Harald
Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 6:09 AM
Subject: Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
Fred Baker wrote:
A thought
Ray,
While I could live with this, I agree, strongly, with Ted. The
character and volume of comments, including organized outside
interventions, in the IPR discussions of the last year or two,
should be sufficient to convince everyone how significant IPR
matters can get. If the Trust is the
I too like Ted's comments.
If the job is really to preside over the Trust meetings, the title
convener might be useful; if the job is to make sure Trust work gets
followed up, call it an executive director.
But I can live with the current proposal (although dropping #12 entirely
would make
Dear Ray;
I support these changes. I have one nit.
On Apr 10, 2008, at 9:21 PM, Ray Pelletier wrote:
The Trustees have considered the comments from the list and propose
the following amended revisions to the Trust Administrative
Procedures. The Trustees propose to take action at its
Something rather obvious.
Stephan
On 4/11/08 7:32 AM, Marshall Eubanks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. The Trustees shall select one Trustee to serve as the Chair of
the Trust.
a. The following Trustees are not eligible to serve as IETF Chair:
A thought...
your list below eliminates five out of the ten of the IAOC. The
remaining folks include the IAOC secretary (whom I would suggest
should also be ineligible), a member selected by the IETF nomcom, the
member selected by the IESG, and the member selected by the IAB.
I would
On 2008-04-11 23:40, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
I too like Ted's comments.
If the job is really to preside over the Trust meetings, the title
convener might be useful; if the job is to make sure Trust work gets
followed up, call it an executive director.
But I can live with the current
The Trustees have considered the comments from the list and propose the
following amended revisions to the Trust Administrative Procedures. The
Trustees propose to take action at its April 17th meeting and will
consider all comments received by that date.
2. The Trustees shall select one
I have resisted contributing to this thread because so many of the salient
points had already been made. But permit me to make a small observation.
This proposal has a general thrust that seems to say This position is
important, and
we don't want to pile too much power in one pair of hands, so
--On Wednesday, 09 April, 2008 14:00 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let's expand the quotation from the current, unamended Trust
procedures slightly:
If at any time the IAOC ceases to
exist, the Trustees then in office shall remain in office
and determine the future of
On Apr 9, 2008, at 8:21 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Wednesday, 09 April, 2008 14:00 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let's expand the quotation from the current, unamended Trust
procedures slightly:
If at any time the IAOC ceases to
exist, the Trustees then in
--On Wednesday, 09 April, 2008 10:24 -0400 Marshall Eubanks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How, precisely, would the IAOC cease to exist ?
Marshall, this is nearly irrelevant. The point is that there is
language covering that case in the Trust Agreement and there is
language in the procedures
,
Ed Juskevicius
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
John C Klensin
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 1:39 PM
To: Marshall Eubanks
Cc: Leslie Daigle; Harald Alvestrand; IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative
--On Wednesday, 09 April, 2008 13:50 -0400 Ed Juskevicius
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John, you wrote:
Then recommend to the community that the Trust Agreement be
changed.
The Trustees are not talking about changing the terms of the
Trust Agreement, so this should not be necessary.
Good.
On 2008-04-10 07:04, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Wednesday, 09 April, 2008 13:50 -0400 Ed Juskevicius
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John, you wrote:
Then recommend to the community that the Trust Agreement be
changed.
The Trustees are not talking about changing the terms of the
Trust
Hi,
I agree with Russ. I think the trust and the IAOC have a bit different focus
and it makes sense at times have a different chair for the different
positions.
This does not mean that we couldn't go in the future back to the common
IAOC/Trust chair, but currently the work split would make
Russ,
The IETF Trust was set up as an instrument -- a naturally limited scope.
The specific task you identify below (paying attention to items) could
reasonably be addressed as Harald suggested.
Giving the Trust a chair is at least a step towards acknowledging it as a
separate organization
Discussion
Cc: Harald Alvestrand
Subject: Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
Russ,
The IETF Trust was set up as an instrument -- a naturally limited scope.
The specific task you identify below (paying attention to items) could
reasonably be addressed as Harald
I hope that other IAOC members will share their thoughts too. Here are mine.
Right now, the IETF Trust is faced with more work than usual. The
IPR WG has placed a significant task on the IETF Trust. Yet, all of
the usual IAOC activities need to go forward on the usual
schedule. The reason
On Apr 8, 2008, at 1:14 PM, Leslie Daigle wrote:
Giving the Trust a chair is at least a step towards acknowledging
it as a separate organization (beyond instrument), and one could
then examine whether the IAOC members are, in fact, the right
people to populate it (for example). It
--On Tuesday, 08 April, 2008 16:30 -0400 Ed Juskevicius
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
The above being said, it is quite clear from the excellent
comments posted by several people on this topic that the
Trustees have more work to do before the job of revising the
text on the Administrative
--On Tuesday, 08 April, 2008 14:25 -0700 Fred Baker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 8, 2008, at 1:14 PM, Leslie Daigle wrote:
Giving the Trust a chair is at least a step towards
acknowledging it as a separate organization (beyond
instrument), and one could then examine whether the
John,
On 2008-04-09 12:55, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, 08 April, 2008 16:30 -0400 Ed Juskevicius
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
The above being said, it is quite clear from the excellent
comments posted by several people on this topic that the
Trustees have more work to do before
+1 from me.
The role of the Trust Chair used to be pretty lightweight: either it
still is, and Harald's advice is sound (get clerical help), or it
no longer is, and a more detailed explanation of the experienced change
would be helpful to the community being asked for comment.
Leslie.
--On
The IAOC and the IETF Trust have different focus. The idea behind
the separate chair is to make sure that someone is paying attention
to the items that need to be handled by each body in a timely
manner. It is simply a mechanism to help ensure that noting is
falling between the cracks.
Russ
On Apr 3, 2008, at 1:54 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
Probably the Trust and/or IAOC procedures or charter should be
modified so that, in the event of the demise of the IAOC, the Trust
falls firmly under direct IETF control (unless the IETF itself
ceases to exist).
The concept makes sense
Fred Baker wrote:
On Apr 3, 2008, at 1:54 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
Probably the Trust and/or IAOC procedures or charter should be
modified so that, in the event of the demise of the IAOC, the Trust
falls firmly under direct IETF control (unless the IETF itself
ceases to exist).
--On Monday, 07 April, 2008 16:55 -0400 Ray Pelletier
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fred Baker wrote:
On Apr 3, 2008, at 1:54 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
Probably the Trust and/or IAOC procedures or charter should
be modified so that, in the event of the demise of the
IAOC, the Trust
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, 07 April, 2008 16:55 -0400 Ray Pelletier
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fred Baker wrote:
On Apr 3, 2008, at 1:54 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
Probably the Trust and/or IAOC procedures or charter should
be modified so that, in the event of the
After considering the comments so far, I think I disagree with having a
separate Trust chair.
The idea behind making the IAOC be the Trustees was, among other things,
to make sure that we didn't create yet another nexus of control in the
labyrinth of committees; I understood the legal
Ray Pelletier wrote:
12. The Trustees are the current members of the IAOC. When a member
leaves the IAOC for whatever reason, he or she ceases to be a Trustee.
When a new member joins the IAOC, he or she becomes a Trustee [ADD -
upon their acceptance in writing].
This is already covered in
On 2008-04-04 22:57, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Ray Pelletier wrote:
12. The Trustees are the current members of the IAOC. When a member
leaves the IAOC for whatever reason, he or she ceases to be a Trustee.
When a new member joins the IAOC, he or she becomes a Trustee [ADD -
upon their
-1. I think that given the pressure of work on our
volunteer officials, we should allow load sharing
wherever it's feasible. We have running code here -
despite having the IAD's support and a volunteer
Secretary for the Trust, two successive IAOC chairs
have been overburdened.
Brian
On
Ray,
Some observations...
(1) If someone doesn't become a Trustee until her or she is
willing to sign something, one either needs to have explicit
provisions for what happens if someone declines to sign or
willingness to sign has to be an explicit condition for
membership in the IAOC. Since
John:
(2) Because some members of the IAOC are appointed by (or
ex-officio from) other bodies, I would prefer that, if there is
going to be a separate Trust Chair, that person be required to
be an IETF appointee and subject to recall. No matter how many
the Chair is nothing special rules one
John,
On 2008-04-04 09:54, John C Klensin wrote:
Ray,
Some observations...
(1) If someone doesn't become a Trustee until her or she is
willing to sign something, one either needs to have explicit
provisions for what happens if someone declines to sign or
willingness to sign has to be an
--On Friday, 04 April, 2008 11:39 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John,
On 2008-04-04 09:54, John C Klensin wrote:
Ray,
Some observations...
(1) If someone doesn't become a Trustee until her or she is
willing to sign something, one either needs to have explicit
38 matches
Mail list logo
