All of which suggests to me that Harald's contentious last sentence should simply be removed.
btw I agree with all his other suggested changes.
Brian
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, 10 January, 2005 14:07 -0500 Leslie Daigle <leslie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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).
I'm in complete agreement with the above. And I think I prefer your second formulation, if only because the right group of people to serve on a disentangling committee may not be the same people who have been selected to sit on the IAOC, regardless of how they are selected.
In an odd way, that also makes the question of what to put in
this document easier. If we go back to the principle that
un-doing this agreement requires a new BCP, that hypothetical
document can specify the relevant arrangements and transition
structure as needed under the circumstances.
That has another implication that may be important: Presumably any decision to undo the ISOC model should originate (at least formally) within the IETF -- the IAOC, or a subset of the IAOC should not have the authority to do it on its own. If the IAOC members, or a subset of them, are unhappy with ISOC, that should be brought to the attention of the IETF. And, if an un-doing process starts with ISOC deciding to fold its tent or kick the IETF out, it is again not clear that the members of the IAOC, with or without restrictions, are the right ones to handle that process -- the IETF community would almost certainly need to be brought into the discussion.
john
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf