Bob,
My point was that the abstract text should not be at odds with the body of the document, or otherwise be misleading.
The important aspects of the definition of the IAOC and its relationship to the IASA and ISOC are contained in the body of the document.
Leslie.
Bob Kahn wrote:
Leslie,
If the IAOC is intended to provide oversight of the activities and actions of ISOC with respect to IETF related matters in the future, then the IAOC will need to be independent of ISOC, otherwise the IAOC cannot be an effective oversight body. You might as well have ISOC be directly responsible for overseeing these activities. Further, it makes little sense for IAOC, as trustee for IETF IPR, to negotiate licenses with ISOC if it is indeed a part of ISOC.
There needs to be a clear and clean separation here.
Finally, the issue of managed vs controlled is hardly a small matter. It is basic and fundamental. If IETF wants to be in charge, they should take steps to assure that. As it is, all that would be happening, in the guise of putting IETF in charge, would be to put ISOC in charge, even if ISOC was willing to take guidance from the IAOC. In the language below, this now comes down to what is meant by "housed" in this context.
Clarity is needed on this important point . For example:
"This document describes the structure of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) as an [delete] activity housed within the
Internet Society (ISOC). [new] The IASA has two constituent elements: IAD and IAOC. As an employee of ISOC, the activities of the IAD will be subject to ISOC supervision; however, the IAOC serves as and independent oversight body on behalf of the IETF, and, as such, will not be subject to ISOC control."
The IETF would control the IAOC, not ISOC. It is essential not to be ambiguous here..
bob At 11:15 AM 2/11/2005, Leslie Daigle wrote:
For myself, I find the arguments on both sides of "controlled" and "managed" to be compelling -- perhaps because I am not a lawyer.
However, I am conscious that the words we write down are scrutinized and used by people the world over -- not always to our benefit, and often without any of the context that caused us to write them [*].
So, if the token really doesn't mean anything (per Jorge) because the import is in the text of the document, perhaps the right answer is to just *drop* that clause.
"This document describes the structure of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) as an [delete] activity housed within the Internet Society (ISOC)."
That makes the entire abstract:
" This document describes the structure of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) as an activity housed within the Internet Society (ISOC). It defines the roles and responsibilities of the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC), the IETF Administrative Director (IAD), and ISOC in the fiscal and administrative support of the IETF standards process. It also defines the membership and selection rules for the IAOC. "
I think this is still clear about where responsibilities lie; the document defines them in more detail; there is less possibility for misconception (by using either "controlled" or "managed", depending on your perspective).
Leslie.
[*] A specific example, in a contribution to ITU re. e164.arpa:
As can be seen from: http://www.iana.org/arpa-dom/e164.htm the domain "e164.arpa" is delegated to: Internet Architecture Board (IAB) c/o IETF Secretariat Corporation for National Research Initiatives (CNRI) 1895 Preston White Drive Suite 100 Reston, Virginia 20191-5434 The IAB has no legal personality of its own, nor does the IETF. So it would appear that the legal entity which can control changes to the entries under "e164.arpa" is the Corporation for National Research Initiatives (CNRI).
The whois entry is written this way because the IAB has no (other) mailing address. It does *not* mean that CNRI is in control of the e164.arpa domain, but that's what this expression apparently means to people.
It's this sort of thing that leads me to (personally) prefer the use of the term "controlled", if we're going to use a term. But, if that term introduces misconceptions on the legal side, I'd rather just drop the whole thing.
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On 11. februar 2005 07:03 -0500 Margaret Wasserman <margaret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So, with my ISOC Board hat on (a hat which none of the ISOC Board members
are legally allowed to take off), I am not inclined to ignore legal
advice from ISOC's corporate counsel. Maybe the IETF Chair could ask the
IETF lawyer (Jorge) whether changing the word from "controlled" to
"managed" has any bad legal implications for the IETF?
I asked Jorge, and here's what he said:
this is a political point rather than a legal one. The precise nature of the control/management is described elsewhere, so this is just a characterization rather than operative (executable) language.
So based on that advice, I'm not inclined to make a fuss over the term..... but somewhat surprised that ISOC's lawyer thinks it's fuss-worthy.
Harald
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf