On Tuesday, September 27, 2005 08:08:02 PM -0400 John C Klensin
<john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> wrote:
Again, that justifies keeping the agreement private while you are
negotiating. I don't question that. As I understand BCP 101, you are
even entitled to keep such agreements private from the IESG and IAB while
you are negotiating them, informing those bodies and the community only
on a need to know basis. The question I was asking was whether the IAOC
and/or the IESG expected the IETF community to approve a change in the
BCP without seeing the final trust agreement. If that answer is "no",
then I think we have a problem since this is a new entity that is not
intrinsically bound to the same requirements for public and open behavior
that apply to ISOC and the various IASA elements.
I think you mean "If that answer is 'yes', ...".
I would hope that whatever trust agreement is reached provides for the same
level of openness that we require of the IAOC. Obviously we won't know
until we see the final trust agreement. I don't see how the IETF can
possibly be expected to approve the proposed changes to BCP 101 without
seeing that document. I also believe it would be inappropriate for the
trust to be formed and handed all of the IETF's IPR until those changes
have been approved.
So, it seems to me like the process has to go something like this:
1) IAOC and CNRI reach a mutually-acceptable Trust Agreement
2) IAOC makes that document available to the IETF
3) IETF Last Call on the BCP 101 changes
4) Publish new BCP 101
5) Form the trust, using the agreement published in (2)
I'm maintaining the web site as a volunteer. The documents
that we can fully expose are available. We have a number of
documents/contacts/etc that can't be fully exposed (job
applications, for example) due to sensative content or
on-going negotiations.
I apologize if this sounds like micromanagement, but, if the IASA, which
was put together in large measure to move administrative tasks from IETF
volunteers to professional staff, requires you to maintain the web site
as a volunteer, then something is broken. That web site and its
maintenance is part of the administrative function and is required under
the IASA BCP to keep the IETF community informed. The IASA staff needs
to maintain it or make arrangements to keep it current and comprehensive,
with no excuses.
Cut them some slack, John. Last I checked, the IASA didn't have "a
professional staff"; it had one person. The document I remember didn't
require the ISOC to provide staff to maintain the IASA's web site, take
minutes, etc, and it didn't empower the IAD to hire such staff, either.
They're supposed to contract that stuff out to competent entities, and that
process is still just starting. In the meantime, assuming that all of the
documents that can be made available are, as Lucy says they are, then I
don't think lack of a professional webmaster is preventing the IASA from
meeting its reporting obligations.
The minutes and the monthly reports are the best tool we have
for giving some insight into our process. They are developed
from notes taken by our volunteer scribe and are posted as
they are approved.
I probably have the same comment about "volunteer scribe" that I do about
"volunteer web page". That is how we used to do things, but it is part
of the problem the IASA was formed to solve.
See above, but more so. I understand the IESG benefits enormously from
having agendas, minutes, and the like handled by a professional who I'm
told is very good at what she does. Maybe the IAOC would benefit in the
same way, and maybe not, but I think that's something we can safely let
them figure out for themselves.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf