John,
I believe Harald meant ISOC-appointed members of the IAOC, and not "folks on the IAOC who happen to be ISOC members". (Hopefully, everyone on the IAOC will be an ISOC member...).
That said, I'm not entirely comfortable with the proposal. I don't want to belabour it, because I don't want to give particular importance to something that is intended to be an edge case.
I would suggest that the right way to handle it is, either:
. to note that this will be rife with potential for "conflict of interest", and that IAOC members appointed (or ex officio) by ISOC are expected to recuse themselves from discussion of separation issues (this should amount to what Harald has said, but phrases it in terms of more normal operating procedures); or
. define a new committee, that is not the IAOC, but the IETF-specific subset (+ others, as necessary).
Leslie.
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, 10 January, 2005 16:31 +0100 Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
... Any IASA account balance, any IETF-specific intellectual property rights, and any IETF-specific data and tools shall also transition to the new entity. Other terms of removal shall be negotiated between the non-ISOC members of the IAOC and ISOC.
(the last point is an afterthought. It seems strange to have ISOC members negotiating with ISOC in the case of a separation. While I don't expect to have to use that paragraph, many have argued that it's better to get it written properly while we're starting than to wait until we need it.)
Harald, I may have other thoughts on your other suggestions as I think more about them, but this strikes me as just wrong. There are many people who are members of ISOC who are members because it seems like the Right Think to Do, with or without the former $35 fee. Many people became members by virtue of attending one conference or another, and are still on the rolls since the membership fee was eliminated and everyone was carried forward. Unless you want to make non-ISOC-membership a criterion for anyone on the IAOC who is not appointed by ISOC --which I think would be a very serious case of shooting ourselves in the foot-- you run the risk of every IAOC member being also an ISOC member, leaving no one to negotiate or, worse, leaving only one or two people to "represent" all IETF interests.
In addition, because this might discourage IETF participants from becoming ISOC members, there is a case to be made that the ISOC Board could not approve this without violating their duties to ISOC.
It would be reasonable to exclude any person who has a position of authority or responsibility within ISOC's structure from participating on both sides of a negotiation (or negotiating for the IETF if you want to force them to the other side), excluding any ISOC member feels to me like it is both excessive and dumb.
I'd look to Lynn or Fred for an acceptable way to state "position or authority or responsibility" in the ISOC context. I don't know what would work and be stable as they evolve their management and volunteer structures.
john
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf