Re: Assuring ISOC commitment to AdminRest

On 12/12/04 at 10:44 AM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:

> ... I want to repeat that my one of my two main concerns is less 
> with your note than with the concern that we are focusing our risk 
> analysis and protection mechanisms in the wrong place.
So, this part of the concern basically comes down to a broader 
complaint about the IESG and/or IAB not following our rules, and 
extends well beyond the AdminRest discussion. I'm not going to argue 
with you about that. I probably agree with you on a host of topics in 
this area. And perhaps that needs to be accounted for in the document 
more than worrying about this thing about ISOC. But I do take it as a 
separate issue and doesn't say anything about whether we should go 
ahead with this idea. (That there are electrical problems in my house 
does not mean that I should fix the plumbing issues.)
> Suppose you had said
>
>                 "It is unreasonable for the IETF to require a whole
>                 BCP-approval and publication process to unwind, while
>                 ISOC would require only a majority vote.  We need to
>                 work out a model with ISOC that requires a more serious
>                 process, perhaps a supermajority vote."
>
> Despite some concern about a focus on the wrong risks (see above), 
> you probably would have heard nothing from me.  Or perhaps you would 
> have heard a suggestion that maybe a single Board vote might not be 
> sufficient and that something else...
Fair enough. I was (honestly) just coming up with what seemed to me 
an obvious suggestion about how to do such a thing and had not 
intended to say, "a by-law change or take a hike". It seemed like a 
straightforward (and legally assured way) to get something like a 
super-majority vote. If the ISOC Board suggests something with the 
similar features, I'm more than happy to take them up on that.
> That is consistent with the sort of partnership I think we should be 
> looking for here and which I think the community more or less signed 
> off on in moving toward Scenario O.
> But your note doesn't seem to say that.   Instead, it seemed to say, 
> at least in my reading, "we should not let this go through unless 
> ISOC agrees to Bylaws changes that are dictated by the IETF".     I 
> don't know what the implied "or else" clause is, unless someone is 
> looking for an excuse to return to Scenario C, certainly we won't 
> give up on reorganizing entirely if they don't.
> I don't want to see ISOC dictating anything to the IETF. I don't 
> want the IETF dictating anything to ISOC.
> [...]
> If, as I have been saying for many months, we treat each other as 
> hostile parties rather than as partners working together for common 
> ends we both value, this just isn't going to work, no matter what 
> words we get on paper.
This (and statements like it that I've heard from one or two other 
folks) continue to baffle me.
1. Please don't attribute motives to me. I have no intention of 
"dictating terms" to ISOC about how this should go. To up-level as 
you did before: I find concrete suggestions for a path forward much 
more productive than "I think we should do something that 
accomplishes such-and-so. Does anyone have any ideas about how to 
proceed?" My intention in suggesting the by-law change was to give a 
concrete proposal of something that would address my concern. Nothing 
more. And I'm not looking to return to Scenario C, nor have I even 
considered an "or else" clause. My feeling was we'd be able to come 
to some mutually satisfactory way to address my concerns.
2. I find this talk of "hostile parties" just incomprehensible, and I 
know other people who I've spoken to and who agree with my desires 
about assuring ISOC commitment have expressed the same thing to me: 
We are formalizing a relationship. That's not hostility; it's just 
prudent behavior. I find your reaction (and that of others) similar 
to friends who get into a business relationship and then get all 
bent-out-of-shape because one asks the other to sign a contract. It's 
not about distrust. It's not about it being "less romantic". (I 
personally think people who don't understand that marriage is, among 
other things, a legal contract with the state and act accordingly are 
just being stupid.) It's that you don't know what's going to happen 
in the future and you just cover your bases. And unlike friends, who 
are the same persons now and into the future, two organizations whose 
members will change into the future have every reason to make sure 
that the people who had good will in the first place have their 
desires continued when they're not around anymore.
I genuinely like everyone I've talked to on the ISOC Board. They seem 
on the up-and-up about all of this and I have no worries about any of 
them doing something silly. But I would love to see some way for them 
to say, "Even if a handful of bozos make it on to the board, they'd 
be hard pressed to change what we've done here when we are all 
friends." (And to wit: If you and others think that there is a 
serious problem with the IESG and IAB changing the rules out from 
under this BCP, I think you would be nuts not to try to get some 
backstop measures into the BCP.)
pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
QUALCOMM Incorporated

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