On 1/13/05 at 5:25 PM -0500, Leslie Daigle wrote:
. but I disagree that there was considerable support for filling
the <<>> with by-law changes in ISOC.
I think you're right that there wasn't overt support for by-law changes. On the other hand, I think there was at least some group of folks posting here that thought "a majority vote of the ISOC Board" (i.e., a resolution) was insufficient. They can speak for themselves.
The filling of <<>> that seemed to have support (though, as you restated today, you don't agree with it) is the passing of a resolution to undertake the role outlined in the BCP.
I'm not that this is a fair characterization of the discussion. Brian certainly stated something akin to this. John (though he did say that he thought I was misdirecting my energies with regard to where the risks lie) did seem to indicate that he thought it was a fine idea that it would take more than a simple vote to undo the agreement. Eric seemed in full agreement with me. Fred and Geoff (and Brian to some extent) indicated concern that by-law changes would take some time. Others I have a hard time knowing exactly what they desired.
(Side note: Someone mentioned to me today, and I think I agree, that it would probably be sufficient for the ISOC Board to pass a resolution now to do <<something that would take more than a simple majority to undo>>. This is more about future folks undoing the agreement, not current folks assenting to the agreement.)
That said, let me offer a few thoughts on why I specifically don't think a by-law change is what you want. The by-laws deal primarily in the mechanics of ISOCs structural implementation:
Not so of Article VI, sections 2 & 5, which seem somewhat akin (though less specific) to the kind of thing I've been talking about.
I know you would look to a lawyer to provide the specific wording, but I'm trying to grapple with what sort of a thing would be inserted here to meet your need: something that says "ISOC will support the IETF per the structure outlined in BCPXX" seems vastly out of place.
Loosely following the structure of VI.5: "The Society will maintain a supporting relationship of the IETF administrative operations as outlined in BCPXX".
What I really think you're looking at is the articles of incorporation, which spell out the purpose and reason for ISOC's existence and operation.
I did have a look at them, and (as you say below) I think they seemed a little too broadly scoped to fit the sort of thing that would make me comfortable.
So, why not a resolution, then?
Because:
a future ISOC BoT could adopt a resolution to change or nullify that support with little warning and less than a 4/5 majority vote.
I think that sums it up.
But, the truth of the matter is, if the ISOC BoT has gotten to the point where that seems like a reasonable course of action, we (the IETF, ISOC,the Internet at large) are in such deep doo-doo in our relationship that the action is not the bad news.
As I think I've said before, I have seen in many organizations the ability of leaderships in organizations to (occasionally in the course of their existences) be composed of a significant handful of disruptive and problematic folks. Not a majority of the leadership, but just shy of one. And I've seen those disruptive and problematic folks occasionally shout loud enough to convince just one or two of the "good" folks to join them in a squeaker of a majority to vote for utterly stupid things. Usually their ability to do that is short lived (both due to the "good" people figuring out that their ideas are stupid and their inevitably short tenure), and the organization itself survives the period of silliness. But I can't remember a time where the "bad" people have gotten a super-majority (like 4/5) to go along with them.
This just seems like one of those times where we want that extra road block in the way for a few people doing utterly silly things. For the IETF side, we've made a BCP (which will be a pain for us to get consensus to change). I want some similar commitment from ISOC.
pr -- Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/> QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf