Hi Harald,
One comment to this, inline.
At 8:42 PM +0100 1/13/05, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On 13. januar 2005 13:23 -0600 Pete Resnick
<presnick(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> wrote:
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>>"
To be clear: I think that for <<insert thing that ISOC does>>, we
should have what is currently in the BCP:
2.5 Effective Date for Commencement of IASA
The procedures in this document shall become operational immediately
after this document has been approved by the process defined in BCP 9
[RFC2026] and has been affirmed by a resolution of the ISOC Board of
Trustees.
I have not been convinced by the argument that we need something else.
Because the ISOC Board currently must accept process BCPs, a resolution of the
ISOC Board accepting this BCP is required. One could take that to mean
"ISOC accepts this is the way the IETF will run itself"; that is
certainly one way
ISOC Board acceptance of process BCPs is seen now.
That is a different statement from "ISOC agrees that this is the way
it will relate
to the IASA in the future".
I think Pete is concerned that some later set of folks will argue that the
acceptance of the BCP (the usual step) does not imply the second agreement.
He would like the BCP to come into force after ISOC makes the second statement.
I think he would further like the second statement to be of sufficient force
that it takes a more-than-majority to change ISOC's position on this. I
will leave him to argue whether a by-law change (or a resolution calling
for a by-law change) is needed, but I will take up his point on the need
for the second statement.
I don't think it is wrong for us, in a case like this, to say that
the BCP will come into
force after ISOC makes a positive assertion about its acceptance of
the terms. From my
personal perspective, this avoids potential confusion about the meaning of
the acceptance. This could be accomplished in a single resolution, with
specific text, but I actually think it would be better in a second resolution.
Resolution 1 says "based on the role defined for the board in 2026, the ISOC
board accepts that the IETF will behave this way" and Resolution
2 says "As duly constituted board for this organization, ISOC will
behave this way".
To me, that approach is fully consonant with the "under ISOC's wing" way we
want this to go. I also don't see any down side to it, and I have not seen
one put forward.
To reiterate a point made many times, I don't suggest this (and I don't
think Pete means to suggest this) because of any distrust of ISOC or
its Board; it's just an attempt to make sure later observers understand
very clearly what is intended here, so that any changes must be
argued as real change, rather than as different interpretations of the
rules.
regards,
Ted
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf