Subject: IASA removability - rephrase IAOC role

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:34:37 +0100

I think I should apologize for including a modification to the IAOC role in 
the "removability" clause in a discussion of finances. It is not relevant 
to that topic.
But the discussion pointed out to me that there is some strangeness here - 
in that the IAOC is described as having a role in the process for removing 
IASA from ISOC, while the ISOC president is on the IAOC.

Current text:

   Removability: While there is no current plan to transfer the legal
      and financial home of the IASA to another corporation, the IASA
      shall be structured to enable a clean transition in the event that
      the IETF community decides that such a transition is required and
      documents its consensus in a formal document (currently called a
      BCP).  In such a case, the IAOC shall give ISOC a minimum of six
      months notice before the transition formally occurs.  During that
      period, the IAOC and ISOC shall work together to create a smooth
      transition that does not result in any significant service outages
      or missed IETF meetings.  All contracts executed by ISOC on behalf
      of IASA shall either include a clause allowing termination by ISOC
      with six months notice, or shall be transferable to another
      corporation in the event that the IASA transitions away from ISOC.
      Any accrued funds, any IETF-specific intellectual property rights,
      and any IETF-specific data and tools shall also transition to the
      new entity.

I think a more correct phrasing is to make this the IETF's responsibility, 
not the IAOC's. If the IETF decides to use some part of the IAOC in some 
fashion in the changeover phase, that's their privillege to decide at the 
time - one would think that this would be part of the BCP text.

New phrasing:

   Removability: While there is no current plan to transfer the legal
      and financial home of the IASA to another corporation, the IASA
      shall be structured to enable a clean transition in the event that
      the IETF community decides that such a transition is required and
      documents its consensus in a formal document (currently called a
      BCP).  In such a case, the IETF shall give ISOC a minimum of six
      months notice before the transition formally occurs.  During that
      period, the IETF and ISOC shall work together to create a smooth
      transition that does not result in any significant service outages
      or missed IETF meetings.  All contracts executed by ISOC on behalf
      of IASA shall either include a clause allowing termination by ISOC
      with six months notice, or shall be transferable to another
      corporation in the event that the IASA transitions away from ISOC.
      Any balance in the IASA accounts, any IETF-specific intellectual
      property rights, and any IETF-specific data and tools shall also
      transition to the new entity. Other terms will be negotiated
      between the IETF and ISOC.

None of this text has been flagged as controversial in the last month of 
discussion, so I don't think it should be controversial now.
And - again - I don't think we'll ever have to use it, but it's OK to have 
it written.

OK?

                   Harald

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

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 07:44:28 -0500

Certainly consistent with where I was trying to head.
   john

--On Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 10:34 +0100 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I think I should apologize for including a modification to the
> IAOC role in the "removability" clause in a discussion of
> finances. It is not relevant to that topic.
> But the discussion pointed out to me that there is some
> strangeness here - in that the IAOC is described as having a
> role in the process for removing IASA from ISOC, while the
> ISOC president is on the IAOC.
> 
> Current text:
> 
> I think a more correct phrasing is to make this the IETF's
> responsibility, not the IAOC's. If the IETF decides to use
> some part of the IAOC in some fashion in the changeover phase,
> that's their privillege to decide at the time - one would
> think that this would be part of the BCP text.
> 
> New phrasing:
> 
> None of this text has been flagged as controversial in the
> last month of discussion, so I don't think it should be
> controversial now.
> And - again - I don't think we'll ever have to use it, but
> it's OK to have it written.
> 
> OK?
> 
>                    Harald
> 
> 
>

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:53:05 -0500

Yep, I think that's the right fix.

Leslie.

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> I think I should apologize for including a modification to the IAOC role 
> in the "removability" clause in a discussion of finances. It is not 
> relevant to that topic.
> But the discussion pointed out to me that there is some strangeness here 
> - in that the IAOC is described as having a role in the process for 
> removing IASA from ISOC, while the ISOC president is on the IAOC.
> 
> Current text:
> 
> responsibility, not the IAOC's. If the IETF decides to use some part of 
> the IAOC in some fashion in the changeover phase, that's their 
> privillege to decide at the time - one would think that this would be 
> part of the BCP text.
> 
> New phrasing:
> 
> And - again - I don't think we'll ever have to use it, but it's OK to 
> have it written.
> 
> OK?
> 
>                   Harald
> 
> 
>