Re: Adminrest: IASA BCP: Separability

At 09:11 02/12/2004, Brian E Carpenter 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
> money and IPR, if the termination clauses aren't in the BCP. In any
> case it would be very short.
Don't you think that at this stage a top international lawyer is of the 
essence to this process, to address/validate the current points and to 
avoid to mare the future of this list and IETF for years with 
administrative feuds. I would suggest Harald to call Joe Sims as he is no 
more involved in any governance body, is known from most (cons and pros) 
and has a complete understanding of its structures and of their legal 
implications. To respect the current US nexus (it will change later but we 
need to go fast), I would suggest that someone of serious international 
stature, Internet experience and not invoved in the current debate (such 
Ira Magaziner?) to be also called upon for advice concerning the necessary 
international posture to adopt.
Let be clear. The IETF is here discussing its survival. The world (UN, 
WSIS, Govs, Defense, Commerce, IP, etc.) is currently identifying the 
problem of intergovernance of its digital ecosystem; and that the academic 
legacy of the Internet system may (heuphemism) not fullfil the job. It will 
probably soon discover what we discovered during the ICANN preparation 
debate: the Internet intergovernance model may serve for other similar 
problems (water, energy, ecology, etc.) and is of similar importance. This 
will rise more interest. The budgets the DoD puts into the NCW/NCO 
networking support and the various alternatives investigated around the 
world to its huge and vulnerable statellite centric (and non commercial) 
approach will lead to major technology reviews, totally out of the current 
internet commercial control. Anyway, one may suppose that the report and 
the vote of the Tunis recommendation (pre-Treaty?) will define a new 
framework to which the rules you discuss will have to adapt.
One does not participate at this level into such an intergovernance/debate 
with the structure you plan, nor under the only umbrella of ISOC. The best 
proof I can give is that today the WGIG which is to report to Kofi Annan on 
the future of the Internet Governance includes 40 Members, with A. Pisanty 
(ICANN), V. Bertolla (ALAC), R. Echeberria (RIR), and no one from ccTLD 
(who form the real frame of the Internet - RFC 1591), no one from IAB 
(which was the first entity which should have been polled IF the intent was 
to keep the Internet as a core system), no one from IESG (so it is likely 
ther Internet will not be the adherence to the Internet standard process), 
only Avri Doria is understood as from the IETF (but she introduce herself 
as a Civil Right representative). I note there is an ICANN plan, there is a 
letter of Mr. Zhao for ITU, there are contributions or positions by most of 
the concerned entities, there is not even a draft from IETF. Is this a bet 
that IETF and its technological vision of the Internet is here forever, an 
underevaluation of what is at stake, or the acknowledgment the "I" in IETF 
stands for IPv4 (plus its support of longuer IPv6 addresses) but no target 
for more?
Any position is acceptable. But should it not reflect a consensus?
jfc










May I note the IETF structure definitly needs a banking account, what in 
our world defines a non-declared structure and shows the desire of 
transparency of the members of the governance (otherwise everyone involved 
in the management is legally accountable and should be insurred 
appropriately. This is an issue for every candidacy to ICANN - ask Carl 
Auerbach. But ICANN is a de facto US agency, with a dedicated Californian 
structure. What you have in mind is internationnally far less clear. I 
suppose that in many countries members of the IETF mailing list could be 
subpoenaed as participants to the IETF structure in case of a major problem 
resulting from an RFC all the more if this leads to a critical situation).
I also note that





>     Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf