Eric Rescorla wrote:
Brian E Carpenter <brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com> writes:
I respectfully disagree. The legal thread for our entire standards
process hangs on the Board motions that approved 2026 etc.
I don't agree with this assessment. IETF's legitimacy as a standards
body depends on people both inside and outside the IETF recognizing
and implementing its standards, not on whether ISOC ratifies
the process or not.
I *did not* say legitimacy, on which I agree with you. But if you want
the liability insurance that protects you against personal liability
for your actions as part of the IETF leadership to hold up in court,
I assure you that those ISOC Board motions will be very, very
important to you (and me, as a current WG Chair).
Having
sweated hard as ISOC Chair to get the last major updates to the
by-laws through, I don't think it's reasonable to ask them for
a by-law about this - at least not as a prerequisite for the
kickoff. I will trust a Board motion.
Maybe it's just that I'm a security guy, but the word "trust" here
makes me very uncomfortable. We're setting up a situation in which the
IETF's ability to operate is completely conditional on ISOC behaving
in the way indicated in the BCP. Given that, I think it's quite
appropriate to have ISOC constrained to behave substantially in that
fashion. Sure, changing your bylaws is hard, but that's precisely why
a bylaw change and not just a board motion is what we need.
I'm not saying a bylaw change would be a bad thing, in due time.
But ISOC can get a Board motion through in about 2 weeks, whereas a bylaw
change takes several months. Making it a prerequisite would cause us
to lose precious time.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf