Giving the Trust a chair is at least a step towards acknowledging
it as a separate organization ...
I suppose you could interpret things this way, but that is not my view.
Since its creation back in December 2005, all meetings of IETF Trustees
have been convened and chaired by the IAOC Chair. As such, I think we
have always had execute an administrative role of chairing IETF Trust
meetings, and we've generally referred to that person as the Trust Chair
in minutes and on the IETF Trust website.
The recent posting of some new words for the Trust Administrative
Procedures was an attempt to bring that document up to date, to reflect
a desire amongst the current IAOC to load share the running of IAOC
meetings and IETF Trust meetings by having two different people convene
those meetings, and drive progress. That's it. Our intent is
absolutely not to encourage mission creep.
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
Procedures document is done. For example, John Klensin commented on
some of the text in paragraph 12 that says "If at any time the IAOC
ceases to exist, the Trustees then in office shall remain in office
...". That text is not new nor a proposed change to any existing Trust
procedure. Those words are original text from December 2005. I am
happy John took note of them in this round of discussions, as I don't
think they exactly express what the Trustees intended for this clause to
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 4:15 PM
To: Russ Housley; IETF Discussion
Cc: Harald Alvestrand
Subject: Re: Proposed Revisions to IETF Trust Administrative Procedures
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
separate organization (beyond instrument), and one could then examine
whether the IAOC members are, in fact, the right people to populate it
example). It certainly opens the doors to mission creep.
My point, which I think is in line with something John Klensin said
earlier, is that even though the current IAOC _intends_ this as a simple
administrative change, the fact is it's a structural change that is open
be taken many places by future IAOCs and IETF communities, also of good
intent. Given that, it would be nice to understand 1/ that the IAOC has
considered this, and 2/ why other solutions are not considered viable.
P.S.: Also -- good luck with ever having a "small" meeting -- with 4
Chairs in the room, you'll be looking for end-tables pretty soon ;-)
--On April 7, 2008 3:45:16 PM -0400 Russ Housley
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.
--On April 4, 2008 11:50:23 AM +0200 Harald Alvestrand
> After considering the comments so far, I think I disagree with
> 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
existence of the > Trustees as something different (in name) from the
IAOC to be strictly > something we did for legal purposes
> If the IAOC chair is overburdened by having to manage the IAOC in
> different contexts, get him (or her) a secretary.
> I agree with John's comment that leaving the current trustees in
> on dissolution of the IAOC is inappropriate; for one thing, that
> removes all the recall mechanisms.
> Figure out something else to do in this case.
IETF mailing list
IETF mailing list
IETF mailing list