Hi Marshall,
I'll take this opportunity to say that I was pleasantly surprised to
hear that the IETF Trust implemented a IETF Trust Records Retention
and Management Policy over two years ago.
At 08:02 17-08-2009, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Comments sought for: Standard Procedure for Modifying the TLP
1. An issue with the current TLP is identified:
a. (Some subset of) the community wants something different from
what the TLP currently says.
b. The trust (or its legal counsel) finds a problem itself.
c. There is a request from one of the other bodies (IRTF, IAB, IESG,
independent stream, etc) for which the trust manages something.
Does the IETF Trust want to stand in as a replacement for the old IPR WG?
Some subset of the community will always want something
different. We already know what happened the last time that happened.
2. Whoever brings up the problem, writes a problem statement.
a. In case 1a: this can be an individual submission ID or a ID
from a WG
chartered to discuss these items.
b. In case 1b: A note from the trust to the community.
c. In case 1c: A note from whoever brings up the issue.
The IETF Trust is directed by the IETF Community. It's not for WGs
or individuals to write problem statements for the IETF Trust. If
there is a problem, they take it to the IETF Community and it goes
through normal channels to the IETF Trust.
3. Is it really a problem?
a. If the problem statement was developed in a group effort, then
it is by
default.
b. All other cases, including issues brought up by the Trust
themselves,
a short comment period (2 weeks).
In my opinion Item 3b is a resurrection of a previous proposal
submitted by the IETF Trust to the IETF Community.
5. 30 day community review period of the proposed changes (or decision
not
to change).
The trust will engage in discussion with the community.
If the comments show a clear trend indicating that the proposal
needs
a revision, the Trust may withdraw or modify the proposal, publish
it
and reset the counter before the comment period is over.
Please do not reset the counter. If the IETF Trust believes that it
is a bad proposal, it can withdraw it. When a proposed decision is
going to affect the wider community, it should not be treated as a
"Work in Progress".
6. Trust evaluates responses. Possible outcomes are:
a. There is consensus about the change => Go to 7.
b. There is consensus but textual changes are needed =>
Trust modifies the text, go back step 5, but with a 14 day
review period.
c. There is no consensus => drop proposal (and explain why).
Wasn't there a decision where the IETF Chair determines the consensus?
Emergencies. An emergency is defined as "there is a problem with the
TLP that is likely to be abused". In these cases, the trust can
publish
a modified text for a 2 week review period, then modify the TLP. The
Trust must explain the reason for the change.
If the IETF Community believe that there is a need for a special
procedure to deal with emergencies, it can craft one up. I don't
know what you expect to get done in two weeks which you cannot do in
four weeks.
Appeals: use the process from RFC 4071 for the IAOC, with IAOC
replaced by Trust.
The subject line mentions a "proposed policy". Does that mean that
there isn't a procedure in place for the IETF Trust to consider an
appeal at the moment?
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf