Hi Harald, One comment to this, inline.
At 8:42 PM +0100 1/13/05, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On 13. januar 2005 13:23 -0600 Pete Resnick <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
However, I don't think there was any disagreement (including from Brian) that text needed to be added of the form:
"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>>"
To be clear: I think that for <<insert thing that ISOC does>>, we should have what is currently in the BCP:
2.5 Effective Date for Commencement of IASA
The procedures in this document shall become operational immediately after this document has been approved by the process defined in BCP 9 [RFC2026] and has been affirmed by a resolution of the ISOC Board of Trustees.
I have not been convinced by the argument that we need something else.
Because the ISOC Board currently must accept process BCPs, a resolution of the
ISOC Board accepting this BCP is required. One could take that to mean
"ISOC accepts this is the way the IETF will run itself"; that is certainly one way
ISOC Board acceptance of process BCPs is seen now.
That is a different statement from "ISOC agrees that this is the way it will relate
to the IASA in the future".
I think Pete is concerned that some later set of folks will argue that the acceptance of the BCP (the usual step) does not imply the second agreement. He would like the BCP to come into force after ISOC makes the second statement. I think he would further like the second statement to be of sufficient force that it takes a more-than-majority to change ISOC's position on this. I will leave him to argue whether a by-law change (or a resolution calling for a by-law change) is needed, but I will take up his point on the need for the second statement.
I don't think it is wrong for us, in a case like this, to say that the BCP will come into
force after ISOC makes a positive assertion about its acceptance of the terms. From my
personal perspective, this avoids potential confusion about the meaning of
the acceptance. This could be accomplished in a single resolution, with
specific text, but I actually think it would be better in a second resolution.
Resolution 1 says "based on the role defined for the board in 2026, the ISOC
board accepts that the IETF will behave this way" and Resolution
2 says "As duly constituted board for this organization, ISOC will behave this way".
To me, that approach is fully consonant with the "under ISOC's wing" way we
want this to go. I also don't see any down side to it, and I have not seen
one put forward.
To reiterate a point made many times, I don't suggest this (and I don't think Pete means to suggest this) because of any distrust of ISOC or its Board; it's just an attempt to make sure later observers understand very clearly what is intended here, so that any changes must be argued as real change, rather than as different interpretations of the rules. regards, Ted
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf