On 1/13/05 at 5:25 PM -0500, Leslie Daigle wrote:
. but I disagree that there was considerable support for filling
the <<>> with by-law changes in ISOC.
I think you're right that there wasn't overt support for by-law
changes. On the other hand, I think there was at least some group of
folks posting here that thought "a majority vote of the ISOC Board"
(i.e., a resolution) was insufficient. They can speak for themselves.
The filling of <<>> that seemed to have support (though, as you
restated today, you don't agree with it) is the passing of a
resolution to undertake the role outlined in the BCP.
I'm not that this is a fair characterization of the discussion. Brian
certainly stated something akin to this. John (though he did say that
he thought I was misdirecting my energies with regard to where the
risks lie) did seem to indicate that he thought it was a fine idea
that it would take more than a simple vote to undo the agreement.
Eric seemed in full agreement with me. Fred and Geoff (and Brian to
some extent) indicated concern that by-law changes would take some
time. Others I have a hard time knowing exactly what they desired.
(Side note: Someone mentioned to me today, and I think I agree, that
it would probably be sufficient for the ISOC Board to pass a
resolution now to do <<something that would take more than a simple
majority to undo>>. This is more about future folks undoing the
agreement, not current folks assenting to the agreement.)
That said, let me offer a few thoughts on why I specifically don't
think a by-law change is what you want. The by-laws deal primarily
in the mechanics of ISOCs structural implementation:
Not so of Article VI, sections 2 & 5, which seem somewhat akin
(though less specific) to the kind of thing I've been talking about.
I know you would look to a lawyer to provide the specific wording,
but I'm trying to grapple with what sort of a thing would be
inserted here to meet your need: something that says "ISOC will
support the IETF per the structure outlined in BCPXX" seems vastly
out of place.
Loosely following the structure of VI.5: "The Society will maintain a
supporting relationship of the IETF administrative operations as
outlined in BCPXX".
What I really think you're looking at is the articles of
incorporation, which spell out the purpose and reason for ISOC's
existence and operation.
I did have a look at them, and (as you say below) I think they seemed
a little too broadly scoped to fit the sort of thing that would make
me comfortable.
So, why not a resolution, then?
Because:
a future ISOC BoT could adopt a resolution to change or nullify that
support with little warning and less than a 4/5 majority vote.
I think that sums it up.
But, the truth of the matter is, if the ISOC BoT has gotten to the
point where that seems like a reasonable course of action, we (the
IETF, ISOC,the Internet at large) are in such deep doo-doo in our
relationship that the action is not the bad news.
As I think I've said before, I have seen in many organizations the
ability of leaderships in organizations to (occasionally in the
course of their existences) be composed of a significant handful of
disruptive and problematic folks. Not a majority of the leadership,
but just shy of one. And I've seen those disruptive and problematic
folks occasionally shout loud enough to convince just one or two of
the "good" folks to join them in a squeaker of a majority to vote for
utterly stupid things. Usually their ability to do that is short
lived (both due to the "good" people figuring out that their ideas
are stupid and their inevitably short tenure), and the organization
itself survives the period of silliness. But I can't remember a time
where the "bad" people have gotten a super-majority (like 4/5) to go
along with them.
This just seems like one of those times where we want that extra road
block in the way for a few people doing utterly silly things. For the
IETF side, we've made a BCP (which will be a pain for us to get
consensus to change). I want some similar commitment from ISOC.
pr
--
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