Hi Marshall, all, This is a good proposal. Would it be possible to enhance the review periods (steps 5 and 6) from 30/14 days to something like 60/30 days, respectively? Many people will need to go through corporate counsel on matters like this, which can be time consuming. 30 days is a quite typical vacation period in many European countries. And, for emergencies, there is the emergency procedure with 14 days review period (which I do not propose to adjust). Regards, Stephan On 8/17/09 5:02 PM, "Marshall Eubanks" <tme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Greetings; > > During the last review of the Trust Legal Provisions (TLP), > it became clear that there is no clear > procedure for modifying the TLP. The current TLP only states that a new > version may be published for community review but not who can ask for > a change, > where announcements are sent, where the changes can be discussed and > many > other things. As a consequence, there have been questions about why > the IETF Trust is proposing changes to the TLP, the problems that the > changes fix, and the consequences of the changes. > > In order to solve this problem, we have drafted a conceptual procedure > for modifying > the TLP in the future. This procedure can be found below. We want to > engage in a dialogue on these general concepts. Note that in items > 1,2,3,4 and 6, there is an implicit "Or" between each of the choices. > > Assuming that consensus on the general ideas can be reached, the Trust > will submit a document describing this process in mid-September, 2009. > I invite > interested parties to read and comment. This will be disseminated to > the IETF Discuss and announce list, WG Chairs list, the old IPR WG > List, the RFC Editor List and the IESG, IAB and IRSG lists. Please > feel free to disseminate it to other interested parties, and please > let me know if I left out a suitable list to alert. > > Regards > Marshall Eubanks > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Comments sought for: Standard Procedure for Modifying the TLP > > 1. An issue with the current TLP is identified: > a. (Some subset of) the community wants something different from > what the TLP currently says. > b. The trust (or its legal counsel) finds a problem itself. > c. There is a request from one of the other bodies (IRTF, IAB, IESG, > independent stream, etc) for which the trust manages something. > > 2. Whoever brings up the problem, writes a problem statement. > a. In case 1a: this can be an individual submission ID or a ID > from a WG > chartered to discuss these items. > b. In case 1b: A note from the trust to the community. > c. In case 1c: A note from whoever brings up the issue. > > 3. Is it really a problem? > a. If the problem statement was developed in a group effort, then > it is by > default. > b. All other cases, including issues brought up by the Trust > themselves, > a short comment period (2 weeks). > > 4. Trust (with legal counsel) reviews the issue and comes up with a > response: > a. No, we don't think changing this is a good idea, because ... > > b. Yes, we suggest to modify the text as follows ... (perhaps with > some background material why this is the answer). > > 5. 30 day community review period of the proposed changes (or decision > not > to change). > > The trust will engage in discussion with the community. > > If the comments show a clear trend indicating that the proposal > needs > a revision, the Trust may withdraw or modify the proposal, publish > it > and reset the counter before the comment period is over. > > 6. Trust evaluates responses. Possible outcomes are: > a. There is consensus about the change => Go to 7. > b. There is consensus but textual changes are needed => > Trust modifies the text, go back step 5, but with a 14 day > review period. > c. There is no consensus => drop proposal (and explain why). > > 7. Publish new TLP. > > Announcements: All announcements to go to the ietf-announce list plus > the equivalent for the other streams. Discussion will take place > on the TLP mailing list. > > Emergencies. An emergency is defined as "there is a problem with the > TLP that is likely to be abused". In these cases, the trust can > publish > a modified text for a 2 week review period, then modify the TLP. The > Trust must explain the reason for the change. > > Appeals: use the process from RFC 4071 for the IAOC, with IAOC > replaced by Trust. > > If a member of the community is not satisfied with the Trusts's > response to his or her review request, he or she may escalate the > issue by appealing the decision or action to the IAB, using the > appeals procedures outlined in RFC 2026 [RFC 2026]. If he or she is > not satisfied with the IAB response, he or she can escalate the issue > to the ISOC Board of Trustees, as described in RFC 2026. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf