Fred,
I believe we strongly agree here.
I did not think for a second that the ISOC Board would be asked to resolve to adopt a document over which it had, until that point, no opportunity to review, to offer substantive comment and to reach a position where it was comfortable with the obligations being asked of ISOC in this structure. There is a delicate piece of process management here that I personally hope will be happening sooner rather than later where the ISOC Board will be given that opportunity to provide its comments and perspectives on this document to the IETF prior to the IETF process signing off on this document for publication as a BCP.
Regards,
Geoff
At 02:50 PM 14/12/2004, Fred Baker wrote:
At 12:22 PM 12/14/04 +1100, Geoff Huston wrote: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.
I'm certainly in favor of that after the IETF discusses the document and its provisions with the ISOC Board of Trustees and proposes such a resolution.
Let me put it in terms of an analogy. draft-baker-tsvwg-vpn-signaled-preemption-01.txt was posted as an internet draft on the 25th of September. It has not been sent to the RFC Editor to be published. Of course, I also have not asked anyone to consider sending it there. So who is at fault for the fact? The IESG, for not having done what may be my will, or mine for not expressing such a will (if it exists) to the IESG? I think it is my problem - the process is documented, and I have not initiated it.
Most of the documents that the ISOC BoT has received from the IETF place very little burden on ISOC - the IETF will do this and that, and there is perhaps a light duty placed on the CEO or a very improbable duty in the final event of an appeal. In this case, the IETF asks ISOC to hire people, construct budgets that roughly double its current annual investment in the IETF, and take on additional responsibilities of various kinds. The ISOC Board has had some discussion with the IETF during the process, but there is also discussion that has not happened. In terms of generating this BCP, it has been clearly stated that this is an IETF discussion, in which the IETF decides what it wants. If you were (still) on the ISOC Board, would you approve the document without a presentation of its provisions and discussion between the IETF leadership and the ISOC Board of the incorporated expectations? Hmm, thought not. That would not be consistent with a fiduciary responsibility.
By the way, I requested that this dialog happen in the November board meeting in an email to dasani@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on 12 August. The reasons it did not happen should be obvious. That doesn't mean that it is not now needed.
The ISOC BoT is, as I said before, very supportive and very willing. We are at this moment knee deep in generating the necessary budgets and so on. The process, just like the IETF's process for converting an I-D to an RFC, is publicly documented. But a finished document, a discussion of it with the ISOC Board, a proposed resolution, and a request to so resolve have not been received by the ISOC Board. The ball is, at this point, in the IETF's court.
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf