Assuring ISOC commitment to AdminRest

I have talked privately to some folks (including ISOC Board members) 
about this, and I think it's high time to start seriously thinking 
about it:
The BCP is the *IETF's* description of what the *IETF* expects out of 
this administrative function. But a good deal of the structure we're 
describing requires *ISOC* buying into this BCP and committing to its 
requirements. For example, it's all well and good to make 
requirements about the independence of the IAD and how funds are 
allocated to IASA, but given that ISOC is going to be the IAD's 
employer and the holder of the purse strings, it's really ISOC who 
needs to adopt these requirements and stick to them.
Now, I have every expectation of the current ISOC Board that they 
will vote to take on the duties outlined in the BCP (and I expect the 
vote to be unanimous). However, we are putting a great deal of time 
and effort into this project, and changing any BCP, let alone this 
BCP, on a whim would be no pleasant task. I would like assurance that 
in some future version of the ISOC Board (where perhaps priorities 
and projects other than the IETF become more important), we don't end 
up with a mere majority of the Board voting to abandon these 
commitments. I want ISOC stuck with us as much as we're stuck with 
them. :-)
To do this, I suggest that we don't call the administrative 
restructuring "done" until ISOC votes, by a 4/5 majority, to amend 
its by-laws to commit to the support of the IETF as outlined in the 
BCP. Procedurally, I would say that we should add a section to the 
BCP that simply says:
- This BCP becomes effective when the Internet Society adopts a 
by-law affirming the contents of this document.
And ISOC creates a by-law which says:

- The Society, given its special relationship with and financial 
support of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), shall support 
the administrative activities of the IETF as described in their Best 
Current Practices (BCP) number X.
(I have no problem with ISOC wanting a different sort of by-law, one 
which describes the relationship as opposed to just pointing to our 
BCP. However, again I would think that we don't call the process 
"done" until we agree that we've gotten the right sort of commitment 
out of ISOC.)
Given a by-law, if ISOC wants to pull out of the arrangement, it will 
take a 4/5 majority to do so. (Though I have been, and continue to 
be, someone who wants to see those "explosive bolts" as part of the 
plan, I do want them to be *bolts*, not paper clips. This is a big 
commitment we (IETF and ISOC) are making to each other, and I don't 
want it to be easy for a relatively small number of people to mess 
up.)
(P.S.: I will not be speeding in answering e-mail over the next few 
weeks, so if you have personal comments for me, please be patient for 
my reply.)
pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

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