|
Re: "Controlled" vs "Managed" (Re: ASCII diff of ISOC-proposed changes to BCP)
2005-02-14 11:22:21
Bob,
My point was that the abstract text should not be at odds with
the body of the document, or otherwise be misleading.
The important aspects of the definition of the IAOC and
its relationship to the IASA and ISOC are contained in the
body of the document.
Leslie.
Bob Kahn wrote:
Leslie,
If the IAOC is intended to provide oversight of the activities and
actions of ISOC with respect to IETF related matters in the future, then
the IAOC will need to be independent of ISOC, otherwise the IAOC cannot
be an effective oversight body. You might as well have ISOC be directly
responsible for overseeing these activities. Further, it makes little
sense for IAOC, as trustee for IETF IPR, to negotiate licenses with ISOC
if it is indeed a part of ISOC.
There needs to be a clear and clean separation here.
Finally, the issue of managed vs controlled is hardly a small matter. It
is basic and fundamental. If IETF wants to be in charge, they should
take steps to assure that. As it is, all that would be happening, in the
guise of putting IETF in charge, would be to put ISOC in charge, even if
ISOC was willing to take guidance from the IAOC. In the language below,
this now comes down to what is meant by "housed" in this context.
Clarity is needed on this important point . For example:
"This document describes the structure of the IETF Administrative
Support Activity (IASA) as an [delete] activity housed within the
Internet Society (ISOC). [new] The IASA has two constituent
elements: IAD and IAOC. As an employee of ISOC, the activities of the
IAD will be subject to ISOC supervision; however, the IAOC serves as
and independent oversight body on behalf of the IETF, and, as such,
will not be subject to ISOC control."
The IETF would control the IAOC, not ISOC. It is essential not to be
ambiguous here..
bob
At 11:15 AM 2/11/2005, Leslie Daigle wrote:
For myself, I find the arguments on both sides of "controlled"
and "managed" to be compelling -- perhaps because I am not a
lawyer.
However, I am conscious that the words we write down are scrutinized
and used by people the world over -- not always to our benefit,
and often without any of the context that caused us to write
them [*].
So, if the token really doesn't mean anything (per Jorge) because
the import is in the text of the document, perhaps the right
answer is to just *drop* that clause.
"This document describes the structure of the IETF Administrative
Support Activity (IASA) as an [delete] activity housed within the
Internet Society (ISOC)."
That makes the entire abstract:
"
This document describes the structure of the IETF Administrative Support
Activity (IASA) as an activity housed within the Internet Society
(ISOC). It defines the roles and responsibilities of the IETF
Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC), the IETF Administrative
Director (IAD), and ISOC in the fiscal and administrative support of the
IETF standards process. It also defines the membership and selection
rules for the IAOC.
"
I think this is still clear about where responsibilities lie; the
document defines them in more detail; there is less possibility
for misconception (by using either "controlled" or "managed",
depending on your perspective).
Leslie.
[*] A specific example, in a contribution to ITU re. e164.arpa:
As can be seen from:
http://www.iana.org/arpa-dom/e164.htm
the domain "e164.arpa" is delegated to:
Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
c/o IETF Secretariat
Corporation for National Research Initiatives (CNRI)
1895 Preston White Drive
Suite 100
Reston, Virginia 20191-5434
The IAB has no legal personality of its own, nor does the IETF. So it
would appear that the legal entity which can control changes to the
entries under "e164.arpa" is the Corporation for National Research
Initiatives (CNRI).
The whois entry is written this way because the IAB has no (other)
mailing address. It does *not* mean that CNRI is in control of
the e164.arpa domain, but that's what this expression apparently
means to people.
It's this sort of thing that leads me to (personally) prefer the
use of the term "controlled", if we're going to use a term. But,
if that term introduces misconceptions on the legal side, I'd
rather just drop the whole thing.
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On 11. februar 2005 07:03 -0500 Margaret Wasserman
<margaret(_at_)thingmagic(_dot_)com> wrote:
So, with my ISOC Board hat on (a hat which none of the ISOC Board
members
are legally allowed to take off), I am not inclined to ignore legal
advice from ISOC's corporate counsel. Maybe the IETF Chair could
ask the
IETF lawyer (Jorge) whether changing the word from "controlled" to
"managed" has any bad legal implications for the IETF?
I asked Jorge, and here's what he said:
this is a political point rather than a legal one.
The precise nature of the control/management is described
elsewhere, so this is just a characterization rather than
operative (executable) language.
So based on that advice, I'm not inclined to make a fuss over the
term..... but somewhat surprised that ISOC's lawyer thinks it's
fuss-worthy.
Harald
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
|
|