At 10:12 AM 5/7/2010, John C Klensin wrote:
To the extent to which we want to open this can of worms (or are
forced into it by necessity), there is a second "fundamental
'constitutional' difference" here. As I read BCP 101, it is
pretty clear that the IAOC (or IASA generally) are forbidden to
make policy or carry out experiments whose implications extend
beyond the financial/administrative. If I recall, the IAOC
The IAOC is the body that deals with financial and administrative
matters. Decisions taken by the IAOC indirectly affect policy. It's
up to the IAOC to see that it does not cross the policy line or else
it will cause other problems.
decided to initiate the "day pass" experiment using exactly the
model you describe above: the community was asked for input and
then the IAOC made the decision based on the IAOC's preferences.
I assume that no one thought of the Nomcom implications despite
the presence of the IAB Chair and IETF Chair and some IAB and
IESG-appointed representatives on the IAOC -- people whose role
is presumably to catch just such things. But, if there is a
constitutional process issue here, it extends well beyond the
IESG issuing a process clarification about the implications of
an experiment.
Didn't the IPR WG make a similar mistake? The lesson to be learned
is that even if the community is asked for input, some problems only
come to light during the implementation phase. We can ask why the
representatives mentioned above didn't point to a possible problem
with the experiment. But that won't solve the problem.
The various BCPs do not specify who is the "authority" to address the
problem. The IETF can ignore the process and come up with a
solution. Henk Uijterwaal commented on the numbers and asked
whether it is worth solving the problem. Jari Arkko mentioned that a
statement can be treated as the usual documents. The "process"
followed by this Last Call is as follows:
1. The IESG discussed about the statement. The draft statement
represents the view of the IESG.
2. The IESG starts a Last Call. We already know that the IESG is
in favor of this statement.
3. The IESG decides that the statement can be adopted as that seems
to be the community consensus.
Some twit (yours truly) opposes the statement. The twit explores the
options available.
(i) An appeal is filed. That's not really a good course of action
given Items 1 and 3.
(ii) Assuming eligibility for NomCom, a random number generator is
used to select an IESG member for a Recall petition.
Option 2 could serve as a reminder to IETF-related bodies not to
cross the line. If we consider this issue as one about the
"constitutional" process, we will be leaning towards that option.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf