Subject: Suggest no change: #739 Assuring ISOC commitment to AdminRest

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:34:38 +0100

I believe #739 is a matter that requires ISOC to form an opinion - it is 
not something that the IETF needs to come to consensus about, and it should 
not affect the text of the BCP.

As Brian Carpenter said:

> I'm not saying a bylaw change would be a bad thing, in due time.
> But ISOC can get a Board motion through in about 2 weeks, whereas a bylaw
> change takes several months. Making it a prerequisite would cause us
> to lose precious time.

And the ISOC BoT has plenty of stuff on its plate just caring for the rest 
of the effects of this process, if I understand Steve Crocker correctly.

I suggest that we close this ticket as "no change required" - the issue 
will not be forgotten, but it should not affect this document.

                  Harald

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

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:23:52 -0600

On 1/13/05 at 1:34 PM +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

>I believe #739 is a matter that requires ISOC to form an opinion

I agree; ISOC must suggest the mechanism by which they will agree to 
this "partnership".

>it is not something that the IETF needs to come to consensus about, 
>and it should not affect the text of the BCP.

I completely disagree, and I think it is not at all bourne out by the 
discussion on the list. There was disagreement by some of us as to 
what specific mechanism ISOC should bring to bear on this (and I 
agreed with the proposal that ISOC should be solicited for that 
mechanism and the IETF should come to consensus on whether that 
mechanism was acceptable). However, I don't think there was any 
disagreement (including from Brian) that text needed to be added of 
the form:

"This BCP will take effect upon adoption of the BCP by the IESG and 
the concurrent <<insert thing that ISOC does which codifies in some 
interesting way the adoption of the relationship by ISOC>>"

The open (and I believe still open) argument is:

>>But ISOC can get a Board motion through in about 2 weeks, whereas a 
>>bylaw change takes several months. Making it a prerequisite would 
>>cause us to lose precious time.
>
>And the ISOC BoT has plenty of stuff on its plate just caring for 
>the rest of the effects of this process, if I understand Steve 
>Crocker correctly.

I personally don't believe that a resolution is a sufficient 
mechanism for codification of this on the ISOC side. I made the 
suggestion of a by-law change, and I'm not convinced of the "takes 
several months" (though I'm willing to hear some convincing arguments 
as to why that should be the case). I'm willing to hear about other 
codifying mechanisms. I can't speak for others, but I suspect there 
are others in the same boat with me.

>I suggest that we close this ticket as "no change required" - the 
>issue will not be forgotten, but it should not affect this document.

I object to this entirely.
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:42:03 +0100

--On 13. januar 2005 13:23 -0600 Pete Resnick <[email-masked]> wrote:

> However, I don't think there was any disagreement (including from Brian)
> that text needed to be added of the form:
>
> "This BCP will take effect upon adoption of the BCP by the IESG and the
> concurrent <<insert thing that ISOC does which codifies in some

To be clear: I think that for <<insert thing that ISOC does>>, we should 
have what is currently in the BCP:

2.5  Effective Date for Commencement of IASA

   The procedures in this document shall become operational immediately
   after this document has been approved by the process defined in BCP 9
   [RFC2026] and has been affirmed by a resolution of the ISOC Board of
   Trustees.

I have not been convinced by the argument that we need something else.

                         Harald

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:25:53 -0500

On my re-reading of the thread, I think:

    . you are right that there wasn't substantive disagreement on
      the inclusion of the text:

    . but I disagree that there was considerable support for filling
      the <<>> with by-law changes in ISOC.

The filling of <<>> that seemed to have support (though, as you
restated today, you don't agree with it) is the passing of a
resolution to undertake the role outlined in the BCP.

Speaking personally, I can live with inserting the text above,
with a notion of "passing a resolution" in <<>>, though I think
that the only thing that really counts at this juncture is
getting on with making this a new operational IETF/ISOC relationship
that works.  (I.e., if the relationship does not work, no number of
legal phrasings will help).

That said, let me offer a few thoughts on why I specifically
don't think a by-law change is what you want.  The
by-laws deal primarily in the mechanics of ISOCs structural
implementation:  who is a trustee, how many trustees it takes
to do anything, etc.  I know you would look to a lawyer to provide
the specific wording, but I'm trying to grapple with what sort
of a thing would be inserted here to meet your need:  something
that says "ISOC will support the IETF per the structure outlined
in BCPXX" seems vastly out of place.

What I really think you're looking at is the articles of
incorporation, which spell out the purpose and reason for ISOC's
existence and operation.  Those already talk broadly of a mission of
supporting Internet technology development.   "Broadly" is the
key word -- this is the "generally specific" sort of text that
lawyers create when they know it's what the organization is
going to be held to in order to defend such things as tax exempt
status.  The draft phrase I suggested above would not fit there;
by the time a lawyer was done making it suitably "generally
specific", I don't think you'd be any more satisfied.

So, why not a resolution, then?  It's a formal record of an ISOC
BoT having declared support for this activity, with the expectation
of future ISOC BoTs adhering to the principle.  Yes, a future ISOC
BoT could adopt a resolution to change or nullify that support
with little warning and less than a 4/5 majority vote.  But, the truth
of the matter is, if the ISOC BoT has gotten to the point where that
seems like a reasonable course of action, we (the IETF, ISOC,
the Internet at large) are in such deep doo-doo in our relationship
that the action is not the bad news.

All, of course, in my personal opinion.

Leslie.

Pete Resnick wrote:
> discussion on the list. There was disagreement by some of us as to what 
> specific mechanism ISOC should bring to bear on this (and I agreed with 
> the proposal that ISOC should be solicited for that mechanism and the 
> IETF should come to consensus on whether that mechanism was acceptable). 
>>> I'm not saying a bylaw change would be a bad thing, in due time. But 
>>> ISOC can get a Board motion through in about 2 weeks, whereas a bylaw 
>> And the ISOC BoT has plenty of stuff on its plate just caring for the 
>> rest of the effects of this process, if I understand Steve Crocker 
>> correctly.
> 
> 
> I personally don't believe that a resolution is a sufficient mechanism 
> for codification of this on the ISOC side. I made the suggestion of a 
> by-law change, and I'm not convinced of the "takes several months" 
> (though I'm willing to hear some convincing arguments as to why that 
> should be the case). I'm willing to hear about other codifying 
> mechanisms. I can't speak for others, but I suspect there are others in 
> the same boat with me.
>

---

From: EKR <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:36:58 -0800

Pete Resnick <[email-masked]> writes:
>>> I'm not saying a bylaw change would be a bad thing, in due
>>> time. But ISOC can get a Board motion through in about 2 weeks,
>>> whereas a bylaw change takes several months. Making it a
>>> prerequisite would cause us to lose precious time.
>>
> mechanisms. I can't speak for others, but I suspect there are others
> in the same boat with me.

I certainly am. In that vein, I'd note that the fact that it's
difficult for ISOC to make this kind of commitment is a feature,
not a bug, because it makes it difficult for them to back out
later.

> I object to this entirely.

As do I. How is closing it as "no change required" operationally
different from forgetting it?

-Ekr

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 23:43:53 +0100

FYI:

The ISOC bylaws are at
<http://www.isoc.org/isoc/general/trustees/bylaws.shtml>

The ISOC articles of incorporation are at
<http://www.isoc.org/isoc/general/trustees/incorp.shtml>

They are very interesting reading, not only for what they contain, but for 
what they do not contain.

                 Harald

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:02:46 -0800

Hi Harald,
	One comment to this, inline.

At 8:42 PM +0100 1/13/05, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>To be clear: I think that for <<insert thing that ISOC does>>, we 
>should have what is currently in the BCP:
>

Because the ISOC Board currently must accept process BCPs, a resolution of the
ISOC Board accepting this BCP is required.  One could take that to mean
"ISOC accepts this is the way the IETF will run itself"; that is 
certainly one way
ISOC Board acceptance of process BCPs is seen now.

That is a different statement from "ISOC agrees that this is the way 
it will relate
to the IASA in the future".

I think Pete is concerned that some later set of folks will argue that the
acceptance of the BCP (the usual step) does not imply the second agreement.
He would like the BCP to come into force after ISOC makes the second statement.
I think he would further like the second statement to be of sufficient force
that it takes a more-than-majority to change ISOC's position on this.  I
will leave him to argue whether a by-law change (or a resolution calling
for a by-law change) is needed, but I will take up his point on the need
for the second statement.

I don't think it is wrong for us, in a case like this, to say that 
the BCP will come into
force after ISOC makes a positive assertion about its acceptance of 
the terms.  From my
personal perspective, this avoids potential confusion about the meaning of
the acceptance.  This could be accomplished in a single resolution, with
specific text, but I actually think it would be better in a second resolution.
Resolution 1 says "based on the role defined for the board in 2026, the ISOC
board  accepts that the IETF will behave this way" and Resolution
2 says "As duly constituted board for this organization, ISOC will 
behave this way".
To me, that approach is fully consonant with the "under ISOC's wing" way we
want this to go.  I also don't see any down side to it, and I have not seen
one put forward.

To reiterate a point made many times, I don't suggest this (and I don't
think Pete means to suggest this) because of any distrust of ISOC or
its Board; it's just an attempt to make sure later observers understand
very clearly what is intended here, so that any changes must be
argued as real change, rather than as different interpretations of the
rules.
			regards,
				Ted

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:10:57 -0600

>      the <<>> with by-law changes in ISOC.

I think you're right that there wasn't overt support for by-law 
changes. On the other hand, I think there was at least some group of 
folks posting here that thought "a majority vote of the ISOC Board" 
(i.e., a resolution) was insufficient. They can speak for themselves.

>resolution to undertake the role outlined in the BCP.

I'm not that this is a fair characterization of the discussion. Brian 
certainly stated something akin to this. John (though he did say that 
he thought I was misdirecting my energies with regard to where the 
risks lie) did seem to indicate that he thought it was a fine idea 
that it would take more than a simple vote to undo the agreement. 
Eric seemed in full agreement with me. Fred and Geoff (and Brian to 
some extent) indicated concern that by-law changes would take some 
time. Others I have a hard time knowing exactly what they desired.

(Side note: Someone mentioned to me today, and I think I agree, that 
it would probably be sufficient for the ISOC Board to pass a 
resolution now to do <<something that would take more than a simple 
majority to undo>>. This is more about future folks undoing the 
agreement, not current folks assenting to the agreement.)

>That said, let me offer a few thoughts on why I specifically don't 
>think a by-law change is what you want.  The by-laws deal primarily 
>in the mechanics of ISOCs structural implementation:

Not so of Article VI, sections 2 & 5, which seem somewhat akin 
(though less specific) to the kind of thing I've been talking about.

>I know you would look to a lawyer to provide the specific wording, 
>but I'm trying to grapple with what sort of a thing would be 
>inserted here to meet your need:  something that says "ISOC will 
>support the IETF per the structure outlined in BCPXX" seems vastly 
>out of place.

Loosely following the structure of VI.5: "The Society will maintain a 
supporting relationship of the IETF administrative operations as 
outlined in BCPXX".

>existence and operation.

I did have a look at them, and (as you say below) I think they seemed 
a little too broadly scoped to fit the sort of thing that would make 
me comfortable.

>So, why not a resolution, then?

Because:

>a future ISOC BoT could adopt a resolution to change or nullify that 
>support with little warning and less than a 4/5 majority vote.

I think that sums it up.

>But, the truth of the matter is, if the ISOC BoT has gotten to the 
>point where that seems like a reasonable course of action, we (the 
>IETF, ISOC,the Internet at large) are in such deep doo-doo in our 
>relationship that the action is not the bad news.

As I think I've said before, I have seen in many organizations the 
ability of leaderships in organizations to (occasionally in the 
course of their existences) be composed of a significant handful of 
disruptive and problematic folks. Not a majority of the leadership, 
but just shy of one. And I've seen those disruptive and problematic 
folks occasionally shout loud enough to convince just one or two of 
the "good" folks to join them in a squeaker of a majority to vote for 
utterly stupid things. Usually their ability to do that is short 
lived (both due to the "good" people figuring out that their ideas 
are stupid and their inevitably short tenure), and the organization 
itself survives the period of silliness. But I can't remember a time 
where the "bad" people have gotten a super-majority (like 4/5) to go 
along with them.

This just seems like one of those times where we want that extra road 
block in the way for a few people doing utterly silly things. For the 
IETF side, we've made a BCP (which will be a pain for us to get 
consensus to change). I want some similar commitment from ISOC.

pr

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 18:34:27 -0500

Well,

Pete Resnick wrote:
>> think a by-law change is what you want.  The by-laws deal primarily in 
>> the mechanics of ISOCs structural implementation:
> 
> 
> Not so of Article VI, sections 2 & 5, which seem somewhat akin (though 
> less specific) to the kind of thing I've been talking about.

With some disbelief that I'm dissecting another organization's
by-laws on the IETF discussion list, I will say:  what I read in
those 2 specific by-laws is the provision of tools to ISOC
for getting its work done.  I understand you to be reading them
as requirements.

While your proposed text:
> 
>> I know you would look to a lawyer to provide the specific wording, but 
>> I'm trying to grapple with what sort of a thing would be inserted here 
>> to meet your need:  something that says "ISOC will support the IETF 
>> per the structure outlined in BCPXX" seems vastly out of place.
> 
> 

would be somewhat analogous to those if they were requirements,
I don't believe it flies as a "tool to ISOC for getting its
job done".   Which is why I don't (personally) think it is an
appropriate addition.  Not, however, my decision, either way!

> ability of leaderships in organizations to (occasionally in the course 
> of their existences) be composed of a significant handful of disruptive 
> and problematic folks. Not a majority of the leadership, but just shy of 
> one. And I've seen those disruptive and problematic folks occasionally 
> shout loud enough to convince just one or two of the "good" folks to 
> join them in a squeaker of a majority to vote for utterly stupid things. 
> Usually their ability to do that is short lived (both due to the "good" 
> people figuring out that their ideas are stupid and their inevitably 
> short tenure), and the organization itself survives the period of 
> silliness. But I can't remember a time where the "bad" people have 
> gotten a super-majority (like 4/5) to go along with them.

And, certainly, I've known groups/boards that suffered pathologically,
too.  But where we apparently disagree is that I believe, if we get
to the point where so much of the ISOC board has such a divergent
view of the universe than the IETF does, we will have much bigger issues
to deal with than whether or not they can change a resolution to
support this BCP.  Quite frankly, if the ISOC BoT is so inclined,
we maybe *want* to be moving on, and will be chafing at the slow
nature of the IETF BCP process (as you observed).

Leslie.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 19:01:02 -0500

Pete,

I still think this is misdirected energy.

But, in the interest of finding a reasonable compromise and
moving on, let me make a suggestion:

	(1) We let the current text and resolution style stand,
	so that bylaw changes don't become a gating factor [note
	1 below].
	
	(2) We ask the current, sympathetic, helpful,
	supportive, ISOC Board to consider a bylaws modification
	that does not single out the IETF Administrative Entity
	by name (which starts making me nervous for other
	reasons).  It should instead define some category of
	semi-independent entities which have affiliated
	themselves with ISOC [note 2] and that provides that an
	ISOC decision to withdraw from an agreement with such
	entities, or to attempt to unilaterally change such an
	agreement, requires some specified supermajority or
	other special action [note 3].

Whether they will occur (be created) or not, one can imagine a
number of activities that might fall under such rules, including
various social projects that might be developed as cooperative
relationships with, or divisions of, ISOC rather than directly
controlled by the ISOC Board.  And, in each case, the idea of
ISOC terminating or rearranging the agreement without due
consideration and relatively strong consensus would be, at best,
troublesome.  So a bylaws provision that, for such situations,
divorces are harder to have performed than marriages, would
probably be in ISOC's broader interest.

Would that more or less solve the problem you are having/
concerned about?

        john

[note 1] While I am as anxious as anyone else to get the
important aspects of the BCP right, I am also anxious to get
this process over with and get on with what we are doing.  If a
bylaws change will take a long-ish time, I'd like to figure out
how to move forward without queuing on it if that is at all
possible.

[note 2] While I don't think coming up with an appropriate
definition is horribly complicated, I'd assume it will require
some discussion, consultation with lawyers, and so on.
Throwing that problem over the wall to ISOC is another way to
avoid queuing the reorganization process behind this issue
(sorry, Lynn, Fred, and others).  If people want to wordsmith
it, let it be on an ISOC list.

[note 3] My experience with Boards that change previously-agreed
directions is that forcing careful consideration rather than
permitting decisions in the heat of a passing moment is actually
better protection than supermajorities.  So I would advise the
relevant ISOC folks to think carefully about whether, e.g., an
"approval at two meetings at least a month apart" or "approve at
meeting, post for comments by the membership, approve at a
second meeting after time for comment" provision might serve the
perceived need here better than fussing with supermajorities and
quorums.  But I'd prefer to make this a problem that ISOC
debates, rather than the IETF.

    john

--On Thursday, 13 January, 2005 17:10 -0600 Pete Resnick
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>>    . but I disagree that there was considerable support for
>>    filling the <<>> with by-law changes in ISOC.
> 
> I think you're right that there wasn't overt support for
> by-law changes. On the other hand, I think there was at least
> some group of folks posting here that thought "a majority vote
> of the ISOC Board" (i.e., a resolution) was insufficient. They
> can speak for themselves.
> 
>> The filling of <<>> that seemed to have support (though, as
>> you  restated today, you don't agree with it) is the passing
>> of a  resolution to undertake the role outlined in the BCP.
> 
> I'm not that this is a fair characterization of the
> discussion. Brian certainly stated something akin to this.
> John (though he did say that he thought I was misdirecting my
> energies with regard to where the risks lie) did seem to
> indicate that he thought it was a fine idea that it would take
> more than a simple vote to undo the agreement. Eric seemed in
> full agreement with me. Fred and Geoff (and Brian to some
> extent) indicated concern that by-law changes would take some
> (Side note: Someone mentioned to me today, and I think I
> agree, that it would probably be sufficient for the ISOC Board
> to pass a resolution now to do <<something that would take
> more than a simple majority to undo>>. This is more about
> future folks undoing the agreement, not current folks
> assenting to the agreement.)
> 
>> don't  think a by-law change is what you want.  The by-laws
>> deal primarily  in the mechanics of ISOCs structural
>> implementation:
> 
>> I know you would look to a lawyer to provide the specific
>> wording,  but I'm trying to grapple with what sort of a thing
>> would be  inserted here to meet your need:  something that
>> says "ISOC will  support the IETF per the structure outlined
> Loosely following the structure of VI.5: "The Society will
> maintain a supporting relationship of the IETF administrative
> operations as outlined in BCPXX".
> 
>> incorporation, which spell out the purpose and reason for
>> ISOC's  existence and operation.
> 
> I did have a look at them, and (as you say below) I think they
> seemed a little too broadly scoped to fit the sort of thing
> that would make me comfortable.
> 
>> a future ISOC BoT could adopt a resolution to change or
>> nullify that  support with little warning and less than a 4/5
>> majority vote.
> 
> I think that sums it up.
> 
>> But, the truth of the matter is, if the ISOC BoT has gotten
>> to the  point where that seems like a reasonable course of
>> action, we (the  IETF, ISOC,the Internet at large) are in
>> such deep doo-doo in our  relationship that the action is not
>> the bad news.
> 
> As I think I've said before, I have seen in many organizations
> the ability of leaderships in organizations to (occasionally
> in the course of their existences) be composed of a
> significant handful of disruptive and problematic folks. Not a
> majority of the leadership, but just shy of one. And I've seen
> those disruptive and problematic folks occasionally shout loud
> enough to convince just one or two of the "good" folks to join
> them in a squeaker of a majority to vote for utterly stupid
> things. Usually their ability to do that is short lived (both
> due to the "good" people figuring out that their ideas are
> stupid and their inevitably short tenure), and the
> organization itself survives the period of silliness. But I
> can't remember a time where the "bad" people have gotten a
> super-majority (like 4/5) to go along with them.
> 
> This just seems like one of those times where we want that
> extra road block in the way for a few people doing utterly
> silly things. For the IETF side, we've made a BCP (which will
> be a pain for us to get consensus to change). I want some
> similar commitment from ISOC.
> 
> pr

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:21:13 -0500

>I have not been convinced by the argument that we need something else.

Personally, I also agree that this is adequate.

Margaret

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:59:25 +0100

Ted,

to your point on form of board resolutions accepting IETF procedures:

Resolution 96-11, which accepted the POISED documents, read:

RESOLVED, that the Board accept the POISED Documents: The Organisations 
Involved in the IETF Standards Process, IAB and IESG Selection, 
Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall 
Committees, and The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3, and accept 
the responsibilities of ISOC as described in these documents.

I think the last sentence fits with what you are looking for.

I couldn't find an example of a resolution that accepts an IETF procedure 
BCP without such a clause, but I probably missed it... an amendment to the 
BCP that says ".... and has been affirmed by a resolution of the ISOC Board 
of Trustees that accepts ISOC's responsibilities as described in this 
document" would appear to be consistent with previous practice.

                     Harald

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 10:49:05 +0100

John C Klensin wrote:
> 	that does not single out the IETF Administrative Entity...

(details deleted)

I think this is the only realistic approach. Pete asked why it takes
months to get the by-laws amended. Well, it's because a corporation
takes its by-laws seriously, will need to debate the text, get
legal review, and finally take a formal vote. Corporation law requires
that formal vote to be face to face or conference call, not email.
It just takes time, whereas I would hope that a resolution endorsing
the BCP would take a couple of weeks. [Truth in advertising: the email
vote on a resolution has to be confirmed face to face, but that is
truly a formality.]

(Side note - I wouldn't go near the Articles of Incorporation. If they
get modified, it's likely to trigger a review of ISOC's non-profit
tax status and that is nuisance for no reason.)

     Brian

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 12:13:25 -0800

At 9:59 AM +0100 1/14/05, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>I couldn't find an example of a resolution that accepts an IETF 
>procedure BCP without such a clause, but I probably missed it... an 
>amendment to the BCP that says ".... and has been affirmed by a 
>resolution of the ISOC Board of Trustees that accepts ISOC's 
>responsibilities as described in this document" would appear to be 
>consistent with previous practice.

Since this is a little context free, can I confirm that you mean this:

OLD:

NEW:

    The procedures in this document shall become operational immediately
     after this document has been approved by the process defined in
     BCP 9 [RFC2026] and has been a affirmed by a resolution of the
     ISOC Board of Trustees that accepts ISOC's responsibilities as described
     in this document.

If so, I think that is a reasonable approach.  If you want to leave it up to
ISOC discussion to determine whether a resolution is sufficient, I suggest
the following:

NEW:

    The procedures in this document shall become operational
     after this document has been approved by the process defined in
     BCP 9 [RFC2026] , including its acceptance as an IETF process BCP
     by the ISOC Board of Trustees, and the ISOC Board of Trustees
     has confirmed by appropriate means its acceptance of ISOC's 
responsibilities
     under the terms herein described.

				regards,
					Ted

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:21:05 +0100

>      under the terms herein described.

That would work for me - except that it leaves it somewhat unclear who 
decides what's "appropriate".
Even more wordsmithing:

     has confirmed its acceptance of ISOC's responsibilities

Removing "by appropriate means" means that when judging whether the IASA 
has commenced or not, we have to evaluate the content of ISOC's statement, 
and not its form. I think it will be a board resolution.

                    Harald