All of which suggests to me that Harald's contentious last
sentence should simply be removed.
btw I agree with all his other suggested changes.
Brian
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, 10 January, 2005 14:07 -0500 Leslie Daigle
<leslie(_at_)thinkingcat(_dot_)com> wrote:
John,
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).
I'm in complete agreement with the above. And I think I prefer
your second formulation, if only because the right group of
people to serve on a disentangling committee may not be the same
people who have been selected to sit on the IAOC, regardless of
how they are selected.
In an odd way, that also makes the question of what to put in
this document easier. If we go back to the principle that
un-doing this agreement requires a new BCP, that hypothetical
document can specify the relevant arrangements and transition
structure as needed under the circumstances.
That has another implication that may be important: Presumably
any decision to undo the ISOC model should originate (at least
formally) within the IETF -- the IAOC, or a subset of the IAOC
should not have the authority to do it on its own. If the IAOC
members, or a subset of them, are unhappy with ISOC, that should
be brought to the attention of the IETF. And, if an un-doing
process starts with ISOC deciding to fold its tent or kick the
IETF out, it is again not clear that the members of the IAOC,
with or without restrictions, are the right ones to handle that
process -- the IETF community would almost certainly need to be
brought into the discussion.
john
_______________________________________________
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