Re: IETF Trust response to the appeal by John C Klensin (July 18, 2009

Pete & Thomas:

This response is my own.  I have not coordinated it with the Trustees.

> > > Without taking positions on the specifics of the appeal or the 
> > > response, I have to say that my take on the response is that it 
> > > doesn't properly address the appeal and is inadequate.
> > > I would have expected the specific issues raised in the appeal to 
> > > be responded to in a direct manner, with a clear response as to 
> > > whether the point is agreed to (or not) and what (if any) remedy 
> > > is forthcoming.
> > > Instead, the response smacks of trying not to respond directly to 
> > > the appeal, but say "here is what we have been doing, let's please 
> > > just move on". IMO, that just doesn't cut it.
> > > IMO, an appeal needs to be responded to with directness and with clarity.
> I agree.
>
> > I'm sorry that you read it that way.
> I'm sorry, Russ, but I didn't "read it that way." It *is* that way. 
> It does not respond to the specific points and requests in the 
> appeal. Saying that you are sorry that Thomas (and I) "read it that 
> way" comes across as you saying "I'm sorry you were unable to read 
> the true meaning." It's, frankly, a non-apology and a bit condescending.
My reply was certainly not meant to be condescending.  I was trying 
to indicate the process that was used.  Point-by-point responses were 
formulated in a group discussion.  When they were written done, the 
same points were made over and over.  This did not seem to me to be a 
useful reply.  So, I suggested restructuring the response with the 
same material.
> > The first response that was drafted was a point-by-point reply as 
> > you suggest.  It was extremely repetitive, with the same points 
> > being made over and over.  I found the reply cumbersome at 
> > best.  It was my suggestion that we take the points that were made 
> > over and over in that formulation of the response and structure it this way.
> I see nothing in the appeal that would require repetition, which 
> indicates to me that perhaps the Trustees did not actually attempt 
> to answer the points of the appeal, or that the repetetive answers 
> all amounted to "no, we're not going to do that".
I can tell you that is not the case.  In fact, the response indicates 
that the Trustees recognize places where they were deviation from the 
will of the community, and the actions that will be taken to 
improve.  They include no more proactive TLP changes as well as more 
timely and complete minutes.
> How about answers to these questions:
>
> On point (i) of the appeal: Will the Trustees cease taking action 
> (except for "emergencies") until minutes are up to date? No answer 
> was specifically given in the reply. If the answer is "yes", the 
> Trustees will need a specific answer to (ii), since I have already 
> seen the posting with regard to the new TLP due to go into effect 
> September 12. Either the Trustees have hereby declared "an 
> emergency", or the answer to point (i) is, "no, we will continue 
> taking actions even though minutes are not up to date."
The appeal response indicates the actions that are being taken to get 
the minutes up to date.  There are several documents in the RFC 
Editor queue that were blocked waiting for TLP 3.0 to be posted.  I 
strongly encouraged the Trustees to proceed with the posting of TLP 
3.0 so that the real work product of the IETF was not further 
delayed.  This argument was persuasive to the other Trustees.
> (For the record, the minutes wherein the decision to post the new 
> TLP was taken are also not posted.)
Understood.

> On point (ii) of the appeal: Have the Trustees found that an 
> emergency exists now (and if so, where is the explanation of that 
> emergency)? In the future, will the Trustees explain to the 
> community when such an emergency exists? I find neither answer in the reply.
As explained above, we did feel some urgency to unblock IETF stream 
documents in the RFC Editor Queue.  there are other non-IETF stream 
documents that need other actions to unblock.  However, direction 
from each of those streams is needed before any action can be taken 
by the Trustees.  That is, the Trustees are not going to take 
proactive actions here.  The Trustees are waiting on the direction 
from those streams.
> On point (iii) of the appeal: Did the Trustees find that a proper 
> Last Call was done on the TLP? Did the Trustees find that changes 
> made to the proposed TLP were small enough as to not warrant a new 
> Last Call? Neither of these questions is answered in the reply.
This was not answered in the appeal response, but it was fully 
answered on the list.  With more than a week to go in the 30 day 
comment period, the Trustees listed the changes that would not be 
included based on the community comment, and the Trustees stated that 
several proposed changes had received no negative comment and the 
Trustees intended to implement those unless comments to the contrary 
were received in the remainder of the comment period.  Those changes 
were implemented in TLP 3.0.  The urgency for one of those changes 
has already been covered above.
> On point (iv) of the appeal: The reply answers this point, but 
> starts with the sentence "The Trustees were proactive." Please 
> answer the point in the appeal before patting yourselves on the back.
This was not a pat on the back.  Quite the contrary.  (Who is being 
condescending now?)  It was actually the thing the community told us 
to stop doing.  It was an admission that we were being proactive, but 
in the future we will wait for community direction.
> On point (v) of the appeal: The Trustees have not provided the 
> requested "summary and review of comments made on the June 23rd 
> version of that document, their decisions about each  comment, and 
> the reasoning for those decisions" as far as I know. Have the 
> Trustees agreed to or rejected this element of the appeal?
The Trustees posted a fairly detailed process for the handling of 
changes to the TLP going forward, and the appeal response points to 
the process.  This is a statement about the future.
The Trustees had already posted a list of changes that would not be 
included in TLP 3.0 before this appeal was sent.  Rationale was 
provided, although it is clear to me that some community members 
would have preferred more depth and traceability.  The posted 
procedure will provide that going forward.  Significant proposed 
changes were not made; it is clear to the Trustees that the community 
did not want the Trustees to be proactive regarding the handling of 
non-IETF streams.  As stated in the appeal response, and several 
times in this highly redundant reply, the Trustees will wait for 
formal direction from the streams.
> On point (vi) of the appeal: Have the Trustees agreed to "treat the 
> authorities granted to themselves by the "Administrative Procedures" 
> document as invalid and without force until that document is updated 
> to contain specific provisions for openness, transparency, and 
> accountability, including the provisions for review outlined above, 
> and the rough consensus approval of the community is obtained for 
> that revision"? I see no answer in the reply.
The appeal response says that "the Trustees are abiding by the 
provisions of BCP 101."  This is the crux of the question being 
asked.  BCP 101 was written to cover the IAOC before the IETF Trust 
was formed.  Here, the Trustees accept BCP 101, including the part 
about appeals, as covering actions by the IAOC an the IETF Trust.
> On point (vii) of the appeal: The reply answers this point in the 
> paragraph which starts, "Second...".
> Until the Trustees answer these questions directly, I (like Thomas) 
> do not find the appeal reply adequate.
I hope this clarifies the situation and alleviates your concerns.

Russ


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf