--On Sunday, 12 December, 2004 15:04 -0600 Pete Resnick
<presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 12/12/04 at 10:44 AM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>> ... I want to repeat that my one of my two main concerns is
>> less with your note than with the concern that we are
>> focusing our risk analysis and protection mechanisms in the
>> wrong place.
>
> So, this part of the concern basically comes down to a broader
> complaint about the IESG and/or IAB not following our rules,
> and extends well beyond the AdminRest discussion.
No, actually, although I believe that issue is important too.
See below.
I am concerned that the document (and the underlying model)
specifies insufficient controls on the IASC (or IAOC or IAD)
running wild, perhaps with the consent, or even leadership/
direction of the IESG and/or IAB. That may overlap with your
characterization above, but I don't consider the history of the
IESG not following our rules to be relevant except as an example
of how such things happen. My concern comes much closer, for
example, to Avri's concerns about the absence of an appeals
mechanism and/or a requirement that the IAOC pay attention to
input.
> I'm not
> going to argue with you about that. I probably agree with you
> on a host of topics in this area. And perhaps that needs to be
> accounted for in the document more than worrying about this
> thing about ISOC. But I do take it as a separate issue and
> doesn't say anything about whether we should go ahead with
> this idea. (That there are electrical problems in my house
> does not mean that I should fix the plumbing issues.)
I assume you mean "not fix" in the last line above,
And we agree. On "this idea", our disagreement is
substantially, if not exclusively, about your second point in
your other note, i.e., trying to solve the problem (or risk) you
perceive by IETF's unilaterally trying to impose a bylaws
change, and specific bylaws language, on ISOC.
>> Suppose you had said
>>
>> "It is unreasonable for the IETF to require a whole
>> BCP-approval and publication process to unwind, while
>> ISOC would require only a majority vote. We need to
>> work out a model with ISOC that requires a more serious
>> process, perhaps a supermajority vote."
>>
>> Despite some concern about a focus on the wrong risks (see
>> above), you probably would have heard nothing from me. Or
>> perhaps you would have heard a suggestion that maybe a
>> single Board vote might not be sufficient and that something
>> else...
>
> Fair enough. I was (honestly) just coming up with what seemed
> to me an obvious suggestion about how to do such a thing and
> had not intended to say, "a by-law change or take a hike". It
> seemed like a straightforward (and legally assured way) to get
> something like a super-majority vote. If the ISOC Board
> suggests something with the similar features, I'm more than
> happy to take them up on that.
Then we do not significantly disagree. If we leave the
mechanism as something they determine, subject to our approval
that the mechanism chosen is adequate (which I would expect we
would be very reasonable about), then I think your suggestion
is, at worst, harmless. I'm not convinced it is necessary, but
"harmless" is good enough for me at this point.
>> That is consistent with the sort of partnership I think we
>> should be looking for here and which I think the community
>> more or less signed off on in moving toward Scenario O.
>>
>> But your note doesn't seem to say that. Instead, it seemed
>> to say, at least in my reading, "we should not let this go
>> through unless ISOC agrees to Bylaws changes that are
>> dictated by the IETF". I don't know what the implied "or
>> else" clause is, unless someone is looking for an excuse to
>> return to Scenario C, certainly we won't give up on
>> reorganizing entirely if they don't.
>>
>> I don't want to see ISOC dictating anything to the IETF. I
>> don't want the IETF dictating anything to ISOC.
>> [...]
>> If, as I have been saying for many months, we treat each
>> other as hostile parties rather than as partners working
>> together for common ends we both value, this just isn't
>> going to work, no matter what words we get on paper.
>
> This (and statements like it that I've heard from one or two
> other folks) continue to baffle me.
>
> 1. Please don't attribute motives to me. I have no intention
> of "dictating terms" to ISOC about how this should go. To
> up-level as you did before: I find concrete suggestions for a
> path forward much more productive than "I think we should do
> something that accomplishes such-and-so. Does anyone have any
> ideas about how to proceed?" My intention in suggesting the
> by-law change was to give a concrete proposal of something
> that would address my concern. Nothing more. And I'm not
> looking to return to Scenario C, nor have I even considered an
> "or else" clause. My feeling was we'd be able to come to some
> mutually satisfactory way to address my concerns.
ok. just a misunderstanding in a process that hasn't been, IMO,
quite transparent enough.
> 2. I find this talk of "hostile parties" just
> incomprehensible, and I know other people who I've spoken to
> and who agree with my desires about assuring ISOC commitment
> have expressed the same thing to me: We are formalizing a
> relationship. That's not hostility; it's just prudent
> behavior. I find your reaction (and that of others) similar to
> friends who get into a business relationship and then get all
> bent-out-of-shape because one asks the other to sign a
> contract. It's not about distrust. It's not about it being
> "less romantic". (I personally think people who don't
> understand that marriage is, among other things, a legal
> contract with the state and act accordingly are just being
> stupid.) It's that you don't know what's going to happen in
> the future and you just cover your bases. And unlike friends,
> who are the same persons now and into the future, two
> organizations whose members will change into the future have
> every reason to make sure that the people who had good will in
> the first place have their desires continued when they're not
> around anymore.
>
> I genuinely like everyone I've talked to on the ISOC Board.
> They seem on the up-and-up about all of this and I have no
> worries about any of them doing something silly. But I would
> love to see some way for them to say, "Even if a handful of
> bozos make it on to the board, they'd be hard pressed to
> change what we've done here when we are all friends." (And to
> wit: If you and others think that there is a serious problem
> with the IESG and IAB changing the rules out from under this
> BCP, I think you would be nuts not to try to get some backstop
> measures into the BCP.)
Working on it. And agreed.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf