Pete,
I understand your concern, but I don't think it is necessary.
Worse, I suspect that, were ISOC to start changing their bylaws
in this sort of direction and in ways that would actually
provide the guarantees you want, they would reasonably insist on
reciprocal provisions that would prevent IETF from unwinding the
relationship without cause, would permit them to step in if they
concluded that IETF was about to self-destruct (or fizzle out)
-- see my earlier note on the implications of IETF's going under
--and so on.
Let me suggest an analogy that may help in understanding how far
we should go in this direction. Resignations of IAB and
especially IESG members on short notice, especially if they are
immediately effective, are bad for the community. Replacing
such people takes a month or two, work is typically delayed
during the vacancy and again while the new person reads in, etc.
As partial protection against those problems, the Nomcom
typically asks if an potential candidate has sufficient personal
commitment and organizational support to do the job.
Presumably, if the answer is "no", the person is no longer a
candidate. But we do not, to my knowledge, require either of
the following:
* A commitment from the potential candidate that he or
she will not leave the job from which support exists for
another position in which the IETF work would be less
well supported.
* A corporate commitment, approved by the corporate
Board and signed off on by the CEO or Chairperson, that
the potential candidate will not be fired or laid off,
with or without cause, and that, even if the potential
candidate's department is closed or spun off, the
candidate will continue to be retained at the company
and supported in his or her IETF work.
I could go on, but maybe that makes the point.
In the case of individuals, we assume a certain amount of
continuing and sustainable good faith and intentions on the part
of all concerned. In the case of ISOC, there has never been any
evidence of a lack of good faith on the part of various
succeeding Boards in keeping the commitments of older ones. To
be pragmatic about this, were a new Board to consider such lack
of good faith, it would almost certainly cost ISOC enough in
donations and other support to induce severe harm, which would
be a lot worse for them than the consequences for your company
of suddenly refusing to support your IETF participation.
Conversely, if you assume an ISOC Board that is suddenly taken
over by Evil Influences (in spite of history, IETF-appointed
Board members, etc., I don't understand your confidence that
they would not either change or ignore any IETF-specific bylaw
provisions that existed. We certainly have sufficient IETF
precedents for ignoring inconvenient procedures without
bothering to modify them that they might take our lead.
As I indicated in a prior note, while I'm not inclined to lie
awake nights worrying about it, I'm actually much more concerned
about an out-of-control, unresponsive, and out-of-touch IASC
than I am about ISOC. The IASC is being created by the IETF,
under IETF control, but without firm controls on responsiveness
other than selection of the membership of the IAOC. And we
have a track record -- with the IAB pre-Kobe and, according to a
number of statements during the Problem Statement process, with
the IESG more recently -- with management machinery of our
design and creation getting out of touch, ignoring established
principles of decision-making, and so on.
john
--On Saturday, 11 December, 2004 12:29 -0600 Pete Resnick
<presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I have talked privately to some folks (including ISOC Board
> members) about this, and I think it's high time to start
> seriously thinking about it:
>
> The BCP is the *IETF's* description of what the *IETF* expects
> out of this administrative function. But a good deal of the
> structure we're describing requires *ISOC* buying into this
> BCP and committing to its requirements. For example, it's all
> well and good to make requirements about the independence of
> the IAD and how funds are allocated to IASA, but given that
> ISOC is going to be the IAD's employer and the holder of the
> purse strings, it's really ISOC who needs to adopt these
> requirements and stick to them.
>
> Now, I have every expectation of the current ISOC Board that
> they will vote to take on the duties outlined in the BCP (and
> I expect the vote to be unanimous). However, we are putting a
> great deal of time and effort into this project, and changing
> any BCP, let alone this BCP, on a whim would be no pleasant
> task. I would like assurance that in some future version of
> the ISOC Board (where perhaps priorities and projects other
> than the IETF become more important), we don't end up with a
> mere majority of the Board voting to abandon these
> commitments. I want ISOC stuck with us as much as we're stuck
> with them. :-)
>
> To do this, I suggest that we don't call the administrative
> restructuring "done" until ISOC votes, by a 4/5 majority, to
> amend its by-laws to commit to the support of the IETF as
> outlined in the BCP. Procedurally, I would say that we should
> add a section to the BCP that simply says:
>
> - This BCP becomes effective when the Internet Society adopts
> a by-law affirming the contents of this document.
>
> And ISOC creates a by-law which says:
>
> - The Society, given its special relationship with and
> financial support of the Internet Engineering Task Force
> (IETF), shall support the administrative activities of the
> IETF as described in their Best Current Practices (BCP) number
> X.
>
> (I have no problem with ISOC wanting a different sort of
> by-law, one which describes the relationship as opposed to
> just pointing to our BCP. However, again I would think that we
> don't call the process "done" until we agree that we've gotten
> the right sort of commitment out of ISOC.)
>
> Given a by-law, if ISOC wants to pull out of the arrangement,
> it will take a 4/5 majority to do so. (Though I have been, and
> continue to be, someone who wants to see those "explosive
> bolts" as part of the plan, I do want them to be *bolts*, not
> paper clips. This is a big commitment we (IETF and ISOC) are
> making to each other, and I don't want it to be easy for a
> relatively small number of people to mess up.)
>
> (P.S.: I will not be speeding in answering e-mail over the
> next few weeks, so if you have personal comments for me,
> please be patient for my reply.)
>
> pr
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf