Yes. I have a feeling that even with the BCP approved by the IESG and by an ISOC Board motion, we would still need a piece of paper with ink signatures - it might only say that the IETF and ISOC agree to the terms of the BCP - it might also contain termination clauses about money and IPR, if the termination clauses aren't in the BCP. In any case it would be very short.
Don't you think that at this stage a top international lawyer is of the essence to this process, to address/validate the current points and to avoid to mare the future of this list and IETF for years with administrative feuds. I would suggest Harald to call Joe Sims as he is no more involved in any governance body, is known from most (cons and pros) and has a complete understanding of its structures and of their legal implications. To respect the current US nexus (it will change later but we need to go fast), I would suggest that someone of serious international stature, Internet experience and not invoved in the current debate (such Ira Magaziner?) to be also called upon for advice concerning the necessary international posture to adopt.
Let be clear. The IETF is here discussing its survival. The world (UN, WSIS, Govs, Defense, Commerce, IP, etc.) is currently identifying the problem of intergovernance of its digital ecosystem; and that the academic legacy of the Internet system may (heuphemism) not fullfil the job. It will probably soon discover what we discovered during the ICANN preparation debate: the Internet intergovernance model may serve for other similar problems (water, energy, ecology, etc.) and is of similar importance. This will rise more interest. The budgets the DoD puts into the NCW/NCO networking support and the various alternatives investigated around the world to its huge and vulnerable statellite centric (and non commercial) approach will lead to major technology reviews, totally out of the current internet commercial control. Anyway, one may suppose that the report and the vote of the Tunis recommendation (pre-Treaty?) will define a new framework to which the rules you discuss will have to adapt.
One does not participate at this level into such an intergovernance/debate with the structure you plan, nor under the only umbrella of ISOC. The best proof I can give is that today the WGIG which is to report to Kofi Annan on the future of the Internet Governance includes 40 Members, with A. Pisanty (ICANN), V. Bertolla (ALAC), R. Echeberria (RIR), and no one from ccTLD (who form the real frame of the Internet - RFC 1591), no one from IAB (which was the first entity which should have been polled IF the intent was to keep the Internet as a core system), no one from IESG (so it is likely ther Internet will not be the adherence to the Internet standard process), only Avri Doria is understood as from the IETF (but she introduce herself as a Civil Right representative). I note there is an ICANN plan, there is a letter of Mr. Zhao for ITU, there are contributions or positions by most of the concerned entities, there is not even a draft from IETF. Is this a bet that IETF and its technological vision of the Internet is here forever, an underevaluation of what is at stake, or the acknowledgment the "I" in IETF stands for IPv4 (plus its support of longuer IPv6 addresses) but no target for more?
Any position is acceptable. But should it not reflect a consensus? jfc
May I note the IETF structure definitly needs a banking account, what in our world defines a non-declared structure and shows the desire of transparency of the members of the governance (otherwise everyone involved in the management is legally accountable and should be insurred appropriately. This is an issue for every candidacy to ICANN - ask Carl Auerbach. But ICANN is a de facto US agency, with a dedicated Californian structure. What you have in mind is internationnally far less clear. I suppose that in many countries members of the IETF mailing list could be subpoenaed as participants to the IETF structure in case of a major problem resulting from an RFC all the more if this leads to a critical situation).
I also note that
Brian
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf