Fred,
I would certainly add my voice in support of the Internet Society adopting a specific resolution of adoption of this document (the IASA BCP, referenced, as Scott mentions, by its RFC number). This is clear demonstration of a level of organizational commitment that endures beyond the current collection of Trustees.
By Law changes are certainly more challenging, and for organizations operating under the provisions of section 501 (c) (3) of the US IRS codes I am lead to understand that there is increasing scrutiny of such organizations and a prudent course of action these days may entail some external consultation to ensure that such changes remain entirely consistent with these provisions. I'm not sure that this would be entirely necessary in this case. A case could be made relating to amendments of the Society's Articles of Incorporation, but here again I personally am not convinced that it is something that the IETF should advocate, but more a matter for the ISOC Trustees to consider.
Geoff
At 08:51 AM 14/12/2004, Fred Baker wrote:
At 03:08 PM 12/12/04 -0600, Pete Resnick wrote:"This BCP will take effect upon adoption of the BCP by the IESG and the concurrent <<insert thing that ISOC does which codifies in some interesting way the adoption of the relationship by ISOC>>"
The usual way this is done, by ISOC, is by resolution; note that the statement you proposed is in the form of a resolution. For examples, you might review 96-11 and 96-12 in http://www.isoc.org/isoc/general/trustees/resltn-complete.shtml. 96-11 has been updated several times as the IETF has updated the relevant documents; 96-12 remains a fundamental guiding principle. The most recent was this past summer: ISOC accepted its responsibilities wrt RFC 3777 in an email ballot closing on 23 August.
RESOLVED: The ISOC BoT accepts and approves of the IETF process entitled "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees" and set forth in RFC 3777, and accepts its responsibilities as described in that document.
A few weeks later, the ISOC CEO named the new chair of the IETF nominating committee, which is operating on that basis.
The way resolutions - or bylaw changes - come to pass is this: those who want them (in the case of what you are proposing, the IETF) formulates the resolution required, and engages in dialog with the ISOC Board, usually in person at a board meeting. Having convinced the ISOC Board that this is good for the IETF, good for ISOC, and good for all of ISOC's constituencies, someone calls the question and we vote. See http://www.isoc.org/isoc/general/trustees/bylaws.shtml.
ISOC is very interested in having the IETF restructuring effort succeed. Its history suggests that if necessary it will scale back everything else it does, and risk upsetting all of its other communities, and conduct major fund-raising activities to meet the IETF's needs. I guess the discussion I have heard concerning doomsday scenarios is baffling to me for this reason if none other - there is no historical basis, and there is quite a bit of real history including places where divergence of interests might have been predicted. If a resolution reaffirming 96-12 is needed to calm IETF insecurities, we will have a board meeting following the March IETF meeting. The necessary dialog can take place and such a resolution can happen if the IETF requests it and participates in it.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf