|
RE: Assuring ISOC commitment to AdminRest
2004-12-13 18:34:36
Fred,
I would certainly add my voice in support of the Internet Society adopting
a specific resolution of adoption of this document (the IASA BCP,
referenced, as Scott mentions, by its RFC number). This is clear
demonstration of a level of organizational commitment that endures beyond
the current collection of Trustees.
By Law changes are certainly more challenging, and for organizations
operating under the provisions of section 501 (c) (3) of the US IRS codes I
am lead to understand that there is increasing scrutiny of such
organizations and a prudent course of action these days may entail some
external consultation to ensure that such changes remain entirely
consistent with these provisions. I'm not sure that this would be entirely
necessary in this case. A case could be made relating to amendments of the
Society's Articles of Incorporation, but here again I personally am not
convinced that it is something that the IETF should advocate, but more a
matter for the ISOC Trustees to consider.
Geoff
At 08:51 AM 14/12/2004, Fred Baker wrote:
At 03:08 PM 12/12/04 -0600, Pete Resnick wrote:
"This BCP will take effect upon adoption of the BCP by the IESG and the
concurrent <<insert thing that ISOC does which codifies in some
interesting way the adoption of the relationship by ISOC>>"
The usual way this is done, by ISOC, is by resolution; note that the
statement you proposed is in the form of a resolution. For examples, you
might review 96-11 and 96-12 in
http://www.isoc.org/isoc/general/trustees/resltn-complete.shtml. 96-11 has
been updated several times as the IETF has updated the relevant documents;
96-12 remains a fundamental guiding principle. The most recent was this
past summer: ISOC accepted its responsibilities wrt RFC 3777 in an email
ballot closing on 23 August.
RESOLVED: The ISOC BoT accepts and approves of the IETF process
entitled "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process:
Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees" and set forth in
RFC 3777, and accepts its responsibilities as described in that
document.
A few weeks later, the ISOC CEO named the new chair of the IETF nominating
committee, which is operating on that basis.
The way resolutions - or bylaw changes - come to pass is this: those who
want them (in the case of what you are proposing, the IETF) formulates the
resolution required, and engages in dialog with the ISOC Board, usually in
person at a board meeting. Having convinced the ISOC Board that this is
good for the IETF, good for ISOC, and good for all of ISOC's
constituencies, someone calls the question and we vote. See
http://www.isoc.org/isoc/general/trustees/bylaws.shtml.
ISOC is very interested in having the IETF restructuring effort succeed.
Its history suggests that if necessary it will scale back everything else
it does, and risk upsetting all of its other communities, and conduct
major fund-raising activities to meet the IETF's needs. I guess the
discussion I have heard concerning doomsday scenarios is baffling to me
for this reason if none other - there is no historical basis, and there is
quite a bit of real history including places where divergence of interests
might have been predicted. If a resolution reaffirming 96-12 is needed to
calm IETF insecurities, we will have a board meeting following the March
IETF meeting. The necessary dialog can take place and such a resolution
can happen if the IETF requests it and participates in it.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
|
|