ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Suggest no change: #739 Assuring ISOC commitment to AdminRest

2005-01-13 12:35:35
On 1/13/05 at 1:34 PM +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

I believe #739 is a matter that requires ISOC to form an opinion

I agree; ISOC must suggest the mechanism by which they will agree to this "partnership".

it is not something that the IETF needs to come to consensus about, and it should not affect the text of the BCP.

I completely disagree, and I think it is not at all bourne out by the discussion on the list. There was disagreement by some of us as to what specific mechanism ISOC should bring to bear on this (and I agreed with the proposal that ISOC should be solicited for that mechanism and the IETF should come to consensus on whether that mechanism was acceptable). However, I don't think there was any disagreement (including from Brian) that text needed to be added of the form:

"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 open (and I believe still open) argument is:

As Brian Carpenter said:

I'm not saying a bylaw change would be a bad thing, in due time. But ISOC can get a Board motion through in about 2 weeks, whereas a bylaw change takes several months. Making it a prerequisite would cause us to lose precious time.

And the ISOC BoT has plenty of stuff on its plate just caring for the rest of the effects of this process, if I understand Steve Crocker correctly.

I personally don't believe that a resolution is a sufficient mechanism for codification of this on the ISOC side. I made the suggestion of a by-law change, and I'm not convinced of the "takes several months" (though I'm willing to hear some convincing arguments as to why that should be the case). I'm willing to hear about other codifying mechanisms. I can't speak for others, but I suspect there are others in the same boat with me.

I suggest that we close this ticket as "no change required" - the issue will not be forgotten, but it should not affect this document.

I object to this entirely.
--
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