On Sep 8, 2009, at 2:06 PM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
I'm strongly concerned that this puts the decision making of what is andwhat is not a problem into the Trust's hands.No, there is always step 5: review of the new text or decision not to change the text. If a suggestion isn't considered a good idea by the Trust, thereasons for not changing it can be discussed in this step.Step 4 puts a veto for changes into the Trust's hands. Members on theTrust can be removed by the IETF, but I don't believe that is a good wayto make the Trust to do something the IETF requests.
As a Trustee I've signed a statement that reads:3. The undersigned hereby agrees to serve as a Trustee to the Trust and to fulfill the duties of a Trustee in accordance with the terms of the Trust Agreement and all other requirements of law applicable to service as a trustee of a Virginia trust and to comply with all requirements of the Trust Agreement applicable to his/her
service as a Trustee
If a proposal from the IETF is in conflict with the terms of the Trust
Agreement or the law then a Trustee has the obligation to veto it (a
fairly academic possibility, I believe).
However, if such happens I think that the Trust has the obligation (MUST) to explain the motivations in quite some detail, and explain why they did not catch the problem earlier in the process.
--Olaf
________________________________________________________
Olaf M. Kolkman NLnet Labs
Science Park 140,
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ 1098 XG Amsterdam
Attachment:
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf