I believe Harald meant ISOC-appointed members of the
IAOC, and not "folks on the IAOC who happen to be ISOC
members". (Hopefully, everyone on the IAOC will be
an ISOC member...).
That said, I'm not entirely comfortable with the proposal.
I don't want to belabour it, because I don't want to
give particular importance to something that is intended
to be an edge case.
I would suggest that the right way to handle it is, either:
. to note that this will be rife with potential for
"conflict of interest", and that IAOC members appointed
(or ex officio) by ISOC are expected to recuse themselves
from discussion of separation issues (this should
amount to what Harald has said, but phrases it in terms
of more normal operating procedures); or
. define a new committee, that is not the IAOC, but the
IETF-specific subset (+ others, as necessary).
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, 10 January, 2005 16:31 +0100 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no> wrote:
Any IASA account balance, any IETF-specific intellectual
property rights, and any IETF-specific data and tools
transition to the new entity. Other terms of removal
negotiated between the non-ISOC members of the IAOC and
(the last point is an afterthought. It seems strange to have
ISOC members negotiating with ISOC in the case of a
separation. While I don't expect to have to use that
paragraph, many have argued that it's better to get it written
properly while we're starting than to wait until we need it.)
Harald, I may have other thoughts on your other suggestions as I
think more about them, but this strikes me as just wrong. There
are many people who are members of ISOC who are members because
it seems like the Right Think to Do, with or without the former
$35 fee. Many people became members by virtue of attending one
conference or another, and are still on the rolls since the
membership fee was eliminated and everyone was carried forward.
Unless you want to make non-ISOC-membership a criterion for
anyone on the IAOC who is not appointed by ISOC --which I think
would be a very serious case of shooting ourselves in the foot--
you run the risk of every IAOC member being also an ISOC member,
leaving no one to negotiate or, worse, leaving only one or two
people to "represent" all IETF interests.
In addition, because this might discourage IETF participants
from becoming ISOC members, there is a case to be made that the
ISOC Board could not approve this without violating their duties
It would be reasonable to exclude any person who has a position
of authority or responsibility within ISOC's structure from
participating on both sides of a negotiation (or negotiating for
the IETF if you want to force them to the other side), excluding
any ISOC member feels to me like it is both excessive and dumb.
I'd look to Lynn or Fred for an acceptable way to state
"position or authority or responsibility" in the ISOC context.
I don't know what would work and be stable as they evolve their
management and volunteer structures.
Ietf mailing list
Ietf mailing list