Subject: Re: Re: [Trustees] Proposed Revisions to the IETF Trust Legal Provisions(TLP)

From: [email-masked] (Scott O. Bradner)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 09:05:08 -0400 (EDT)

Some history that may explain some of my and some other reaction to the
recent postings by the Trust

When the Trust was formed a number of us were quite worried that it
would begin to see itself as self directed and not as a function whose
purpose was to act at the direction of and in support of the IETF.

My own reaction to the recent postings from the Trust is that the Trust
is moving in the direction that some of us were worried about -- the
Trust posts a bunch of proposed changes out of the blue.  Out of the
blue because I did not see any posting that explained why they felt that
they needed to make changes or that these specific changes were in
response to particular IETF requests (or legal threats)  - see the
original posting at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg57276.html

The reaction from the Trust to the comments from the community has not
been reassuring.  It is true that they modified some of their proposed
changes but they do not seem to have understood the more basic issue
that I expressed in my message to the Trust on Tue Jun 23 14:57:12.

    What I do not see in this message is pointers to where the
    IETF asked that the TRUST to make these changes

    it would be fine by me if the Trust were to send a note saying
    that we see the following problems - (and maybe, here
    are options we see) what whould you like us to do, it
   seems less fine for the Trust to get
   out ahead of the folks it is supposed to be working for
   in changing things (even if it provides a chance
   for the IETF to comment)

The fact that there was no response to that message or to a number of
other messages (in particular, messages from John Klensin) reinforces
the worry about an out of control Trust.

I think the Trust needs to press the reset button and start again.

Start with a posting that says what problems they feel the IETF has
asked them to fix and what other problems the feel need fixing, along
with the specific change they propose to deal with each problem.  We can
then talk about each issue to determine if there is consensus that the
problem needs fixing and if the proposed solution meets the needs.  And,
unless there is a specific legal threat that the Trust can point at this
process should not be rushed.

Scott

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:21:38 -0400

FWIW, while I think that I may be even more concerned than Scott
is --partially as a matter of personality and partially because
I've seen what I consider more symptoms-- we are in basic
agreement about the problem and the concerns.  This is really
about Trust behavior vis-a-vis the community (or communities) it
is expected to serve and from which it is expected to take
direction and less about one particular document.  Put
differently, the document is flawed but the process that
produced it and the way that process handles input are much more
seriously problematic.

    john

--On Monday, July 20, 2009 09:05 -0400 "Scott O. Bradner"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> 
> Some history that may explain some of my and some other
> reaction to the recent postings by the Trust
> 
> When the Trust was formed a number of us were quite worried
> that it would begin to see itself as self directed and not as
> a function whose purpose was to act at the direction of and in
> support of the IETF.
> 
> My own reaction to the recent postings from the Trust is that
> the Trust is moving in the direction that some of us were
> worried about -- the Trust posts a bunch of proposed changes
> out of the blue.  Out of the blue because I did not see any
> posting that explained why they felt that they needed to make
> changes or that these specific changes were in response to
>...