Subject: Edits - #819 - Elwyn's editorials

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:42:17 +0100

There has apparently been no comments on these.... I thought I'd make a 
pass...

> Some thoughts:
> S1, para 3: s/Such support includes/The support for current work includes/

this works either way for me - "current" seems to say "the next sentences 
describe what is currently done, and the future may be different".
Suggest that we accept the edit.

> S1, Para 3:
>> The IASA is also ultimately responsible for the financial
>> activities associated with IETF administrative support such as
>> collecting IETF meeting fees, paying invoices, managing budgets and
>> financial accounts, and so forth.
>
> Given that IETF/IASA is operating as some sort of subsidiary of ISOC, I'm
> not sure that IASA can be ultimately responsible for
> anything. s/ultimately/day-to-day/ or some such?

I'd go for just deleting "ultimately". The work may be contracted out, so 
it's not day-to-day, but "ultimately" is just trouble.

> S1, para 4: 'and met well' ? Nice thought but what does it *actually*
> mean?

That we (the IETF) like the result?
I would like this to stay, undefined as it is.

> S2.2: I know that US data protection laws and practices are not as well
> developed as European ones, but I think there ought to be some duty to
> protect the data and generate a suitable privacy policy, as well as keep
> it  available. (Item 7).

I think there should be - but don't see a good way of capturing it here.
I'd let it go for now and try to instruct the IASA later....

> S2.2: Should the IASA be responsible for ensuring that the IETF
> (especially  if it is run as a subsidiary) fulfils its legal and
> regulatory
> responsibilities? It certainly needs to maintain any records that might
> be  needed for such purposes beyond just financial matters. I am not
> expert in  US company law but I am sure there must be *some* things they
> would need to do.

Hm. Yes. It needs to deal with subpoenas and other irritations, for 
instance.
But this is a bit like saying "you are responsible for staying wet while in 
water"..... I can't think of text at the moment....

> S3.1, para 3: This para states that signing powers will be delegated to
> the  IAD up to some specified limit. Who has signing powers beyond this?
> This  is just part of a much wider point about the actual powers of the
> IETF/IAOC  and the relationship with ISOC which I will discuss at the end
> of these notes.

The text at the moment doesn't say exactly that - it says that "we'll work 
it out"...... I don't know what more it CAN say....

> S3.1: I think this whole section should be much clearer about exactly
> what  powers are delegated to the IAD to make commitments, as opposed to
> just  negotiating: ISOC executes the contracts but the IAD will want to
> know  that ISOC is a rubber stamp/back stop for this process and is not
> going to  start second guessing him if he operates within the parameters
> set for  him. This is related to the long discussion on Issue 739. There
> is also  the potential for dispute between IAOC and IAD/ISOC which is not
> really  addressed.

Not sure what to add here, if anything - this will have to be worked out in 
practical terms, and the IAOC will have to work out the details in 
cooperation with the ISOC President.
Should there be specific language?

> s3.4: It would be nice to see a requirement that minutes were published
> in  a set period or at least in a timely fashion after meetings, rather
> than  just regularly.

Suggest s/regularly/in a timely fashion/. Easy change....

> s4:
>> While there are no hard rules regarding how the IAB and the IESG
>> should select members of the IAOC, such appointees need not be
>> current IAB or IESG members (and probably should not be, if only to
>> avoid overloading the existing leadership). The IAB and IESG should
>> choose people with some knowledge of contracts and financial
>> procedures, who are familiar with the administrative support needs of
>> the IAB, the IESG, or the IETF standards process. The IAB and IESG
>> should follow a fairly open process for these selections, perhaps
>> with an open call for nominations or a period of public comment on
>> the candidates. The procedure for IAB selection of ISOC Board of
>> Trustees [RFC3677] might be a good model for how this could work.
>> After the IETF gains some experience with IAOC selection, these
>> selection mechanisms should be documented more formally.
>
> Given the comments in S3, para 1, should the appointees by 'regular
> members' of the IETF (i.e., people with a good track record of attending
> IETF meetings) as with NomCom members are their appointees?

Actually previous discussion indicates that we do NOT want to impose such a 
requirement - the people who know how to supervise a business construct 
like IASA are not the same people who know how to design an efficient 
transport protocol. So we want to have this open for "getting the right 
people", I think.

Makes sense?

                  Harald

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:40:40 +0100

Harald, I'm with you except perhaps for the data protection
issue. Elwyn is right that laws in this area vary widely
and if, for example, a subcontractor is located in the EU
they will be much more constrained about use of personal
data than in the US.

I suggest adding something to the IAD's responsibilities,
rather than to the principles. Somewhere in section 3.1:

The IAD shall ensure that personal data collected for
legitimate purposes of the IASA are protected according
to relevant legislation.

    Brian

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> this works either way for me - "current" seems to say "the next 
> sentences describe what is currently done, and the future may be 
> different".
> I'd go for just deleting "ultimately". The work may be contracted out, 
> so it's not day-to-day, but "ultimately" is just trouble.
> 
> But this is a bit like saying "you are responsible for staying wet while 
> in water"..... I can't think of text at the moment....
> 
> The text at the moment doesn't say exactly that - it says that "we'll 
> work it out"...... I don't know what more it CAN say....
> 
> Not sure what to add here, if anything - this will have to be worked out 
> in practical terms, and the IAOC will have to work out the details in 
> Actually previous discussion indicates that we do NOT want to impose 
> such a requirement - the people who know how to supervise a business 
> construct like IASA are not the same people who know how to design an 
> efficient transport protocol. So we want to have this open for "getting 
> the right people", I think.
> 
> Makes sense?
> 
>                  Harald
> 
>

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:29:32 +0100

> legitimate purposes of the IASA are protected according

That makes sense to me too. I think the IASA should take care for personal 
data protection because it is right too, so I'd make it stronger:

  The IAD shall ensure that personal data collected for
  legitimate purposes of the IASA are protected appropriately,
  and at least satisfactorily according to relevant legislation.

Place it just after paragraph 5 of section 3.1, the one that starts out 
talking about contracts giving the IETF rights in data - it seems 
appropriate.

OK?

                   Harald

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:34:24 +0100

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> That makes sense to me too. I think the IASA should take care for 
> personal data protection because it is right too, so I'd make it stronger:
> 

OK 4 me

    Brian

---

From: Elwyn Davies <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:21:29 +0000

>Suggest that we accept the edit.

Fine.

>it's not day-to-day, but "ultimately" is just trouble.

Also fine.

>I would like this to stay, undefined as it is.

The only thing I would say here is that, whilst the IASA and the IAD are to 
be the IETF's servants (with will expressed by the IAOC in the normal 
course of events), asking them to 'meet something well' is in a sense 
asking them to second guess what we really meant rather than spelling it 
out properly in the first place.  Are we really asking for them to be 
proactive rather totally reactive?  This is usually what is meant when 
somebody gets an 'exceed' on their performance assessment:  So why don't we 
spell it out..  make it quite clear that we are not after a passive servant 
but an organisation that thinks for itself to produce the best possible 
solution within the various constraints the IAD and IASA should be 
encouraged to advise the IETF/IAOC on best options for implementation and 
suggest ways in which processes could be improved.

>I'd let it go for now and try to instruct the IASA later....

I' am happy with the words negotiated between Harald and Brian.

>Hm. Yes. It needs to deal with subpoenas and other irritations, for instance.

Responsibilities of the IAD:  'Working with ISOC to maintain records needed 
to fulfil the IETF's legal and regulatory duties, and providing information 
to allow IETF to respond in a timely fashion to any legal or regulatory 
requests.'

>it out"...... I don't know what more it CAN say....

Can you make it clear that IAOC has a role in authorizing larger payments 
even if they actually have to be signed by ISOC president or whatever?

>Should there be specific language?

The problem I saw was that the words seemed to be a little unclear as to 
whether the IAD could actually authorise contracts as well as negotiate 
them: does the signing power apply only to signing checks or also to 
signing contracts on behalf of ISOC?

>Suggest s/regularly/in a timely fashion/. Easy change....

Good.

>Actually previous discussion indicates that we do NOT want to impose such 
>a requirement - the people who know how to supervise a business construct 

I would agree that the regular attendees are not necessarily the right 
candidates but S3 para 1 seems to imply they ought to be, so you may want 
to emphasise this greater freedom of action (and any limits on it) in S4.