Dear experts,
Generally, the idea of "provision" includes a kind of "bad debt allowance"
in accounting. How about expanding the idea of "Trust Legal Provision"?
Gathering statistically of mathematical probability of how setting for bad
debt allowance could be a kind of measurement of ability of estimation
by executives of a corporation.
The best way to growup equity is good choice of executives according to
the ability of estimation.
Standard deviation of probability of adequateness of setting of provisions,
or bad debt allowance at begining could be useful for making the world to
be more better.
I THINK.
regards,
Tadayuki Abraham HATTORI
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marshall Eubanks" <tme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ietf@xxxxxxxx>; "Working Group Chairs" <wgchairs@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Trustees" <trustees@xxxxxxxx>; "Internet Research Steering Group"
<irsg@xxxxxxx>; "IAB IAB" <iab@xxxxxxx>; "IESG" <iesg@xxxxxxxx>;
<ipr-wg@xxxxxxxx>; "RFC Editor" <rfc-editor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 12:02 AM
Subject: Proposed Policy for Modifications to Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)
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@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf