Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050123131937.0547a370@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 17:10:20 +0100
To: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@mindspring.com>,
	John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>,
	Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>, ietf@ietf.org
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Subject: Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5
Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20050122225421.05edbeb0@pop.mindspring.com>
References: <1D04D4A5E0234FFAE46AB913@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126>
 <6.2.0.14.2.20050119112204.0585b710@pop.mindspring.com>
 <41EEEB6B.2060405@thinkingcat.com>
 <41F1A047.50608@thinkingcat.com>
 <076D04BEFD03EF72CECE2549@scan.jck.com>
 <6.2.0.14.2.20050122225421.05edbeb0@pop.mindspring.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-752022FD

Michael,
I see you come - in still a too detailed manner - the real life way I 
suggested. That IAOC and IAD are under the obligation to ask the IETF 
approval for their decisions. But that they may decide there is a consensus 
(there might be a formula coined to that end, they should use when signing 
a decision so it is clear). That IETF may decide any time to blame or 
remove them for abusing that formula. In one big case or in regular way.

Considering each "decision" as a separate case will lead to easy DoS 
blocking of the IETF. Considering the way they take decisions (using 
challenged decision as examples to document it), makes only one case and 
may be watched by independent watchdogs. These watchdogs could make a 
report at each IETF meetings. If a positive report is not challenged, the 
way the IAOC and IAD managed during that period is deemed approved (not 
what they did, but the way they did it).
jfc


At 05:52 23/01/2005, Michael StJohns wrote:

>John/Leslie et al - this is a good improvement, and Leslie's 3.5 now reads 
>in a way I can support.  3.6 still has some sticking points.
>
>After the last round of comments I went away and thought and came up with 
>the following:
>
>There are three separate things that I think were meant by the original 
>3.5 phrase "review".  They were IAOC review of IAD decisions, IAOC 
>reconsideration of its own actions and public review of the IAOC and IAD 
>actions.
>
>"Review" above I took to have a meaning in line with "judicial 
>reexamination" with all the nuances that follow from that. In other words, 
>review can result in a revision of the action (i.e. "overturned").
>
>Considering IAOC review of IAD decisions, this is probably proper and not 
>overly burdensome to the process, and probably the most appropriate check 
>and balance on the IAD.  Its the latter two that are sticky.
>
>The questions I still have that none of the language has answered:
>
>What's the goal of the reconsideration or review?  E.g. can this action 
>result in the IAOC or IAD reversing or revising a decision?  If not, why do it?
>
>What's the statute of limitations for a demand for reconsideration or 
>review? Is an action or decision subject to reexamination 6 months after 
>the decision?  Does the IAD or IAOC need to announce such decisions with 
>enough of a waiting period that the reexamination process can take place 
>before the decision becomes final?
>
>What is the exact set of decisions subject to this 
>process?  Everything?  Meeting sites?  Meeting fees?  A delay in 
>publication of an RFC?  Cost of paper needed to support an IETF 
>meeting?  The date of the public meeting?  Etc.  If we can't come up with 
>a description of this that isn't "everything" I'm very concerned, but I'm 
>having problems figuring out what smaller set is appropriate.
>
>Who gets to kick this process into starting (e.g. who gets to file a 
>complaint)?
>
>
>I'm going to suggest this section still needs radical reworking.  And, 
>since we pay more attention to people who suggest solutions to problems 
>I'm going to suggest some approaches that may make sense.  (Note - I'm 
>using "semi-annual" here - could me annual, could be monthly)
>
>"The normal channel for public review of the actions of the IAOC and the 
>IAD is during the semi-annual public meeting.  Beginning 60 days prior to 
>the meeting and ending 30 days prior the IAD will accept proposals for 
>public hearings on past activities of the IAOC.  The IAD in consultation 
>with the IAOC, the IESG and the IAB will select no more than 3 topics for 
>hearing and will publish such list no later than 21 days prior to the 
>meeting including as well those topics not selected.   Each topic will be 
>heard during a 2 hour (pick a length) session.  Anyone may submit 
>questions for the IAOC and IAD on the selected topic, and the IAD will 
>select no more than 10 to provide written answers no later than 5 days 
>prior to the meeting.  The complete list of submitted questions will be 
>published at that time as well.  Anyone may request time to speak during a 
>session and will make that request via email no later than 5 days prior to 
>the meeting.  No more than 75% of the session time will be allocated to ...."
>
>(OK - I'm getting way too detailed here for a comment - but you see where 
>I'm going)
>
>"The IAD shall advise the IAOC of and shall require consent from them for 
>any decision which commits the IETF to an expenditure of funds.  The IAOC 
>may from time to time specify other decisions for which its approval shall 
>be required.  A decision for which consent is given by the IAOC is not 
>subject to further review or revision by the IAOC.  A decision made by the 
>IAD shall be considered final and not reviewable by the IAOC 30 days after 
>the IAOC is informed of such decision.  Such notifications shall be placed 
>on the web site once the 30 days expires or after the IAOC ratifies the 
>related decision."
>
>"The IAOC and IAD shall not be required to reconsider their decisions once 
>made.  However, IAOC and IAD shall request public comment for those 
>decisions which will have a major change in the visible support available 
>to the IETF and shall request such comments beginning at least 45 days 
>prior to the date of the decision and ending no later than 7 days 
>prior.  All such comments shall be public and will be made available on 
>the IAOC web site."
>
>"The actual decision of where to hold any individual IETF meeting is not 
>subject to the above process as the complex relationship between timing, 
>budget, hosting proposals, and site availability does not lend itself well 
>to public comment.  However, the IAOC will solicit feedback on selected 
>sites, proposals for future sites, needs of the participants, and general 
>commentary on the balance of meeting sites across the various areas of the 
>globe."
>
>"Contractual issues by the ISOC on behalf of the IAOC/IAD/IETF are also 
>not subject to the above process due to the legal constraints of the 
>contracting process.  The IAOC/IAD shall request public input for any 
>contemplated solicitation for IETF support services prior to the issuance 
>of such solicitation.  [Are there any classes of this where asking the 
>public might not be appropriate?]"
>
>
>As you can see, I'm a big fan of getting input up front, but much less so 
>of post-decision whining. I also can't figure out a reasonable way of 
>constraining the "public" with respect to getting the IAD/IAOC to change 
>their mind.  This provides a mechanism post-decision to provide the needed 
>feedback, a pre-decision mechanism to solicit input without turning the 
>IETF into a monkey on the back of the IAOC.
>
>  I think the appropriate venue for IAD/IAOC public review is during the 
> public meeting.  State and local governments have used this to good 
> effect over the years.  Note that I also am suggesting a much more 
> structure bitch session - the structure we use at the IETF plenaries 
> isn't going to be efficient enough or documented enough to provide the 
> level of oversight that people seem to be asking for.
>
>
>At 09:43 AM 1/22/2005, John C Klensin wrote:
>>Leslie,
>>
>>I think this is a huge improvement, and a large step in the
>>right direction.  Two observations:
>>
>>(i) In the revised 3.5, it would be good to get a slightly
>>better handle/ definition on what is, or is not, a "business
>>decision".  Since the IAD and IAOC are ultimately all about
>>business decisions (and management decisions that are arguably a
>>subset of management decisions), an IAOC acting in poor faith
>>could easily argue that any decision fell within that category.
>>I'd consider saying "contractual or personnel decisions", but
>>don't know if that is sufficient.  _However_, in practice, if we
>>couldn't find satisfactory text, it probably don't make much
>>difference: an IAOC that resorts to that sort of hair-splitting
>>would probably need a much more drastic course correction than
>>any quibbling about the text of the BCP would provide.
>>
>>(ii) In deference to one of the points Mike made, I think the
>>first "review" paragraph could usefully be modified to read
>>"...ask for a formal review (including reconsideration if that
>>is appropriate) of the decision."   I don't think that needs to
>>be repeated further on, but will leave that to editorial
>>judgment.  Another way to accomplish the same thing, also
>>subject to editorial preference, would be to add a sentence
>>toward the bottom, that indicates that outcome of a review could
>>include either a decision to do things differently in the future
>>or reconsideration, if it is not an already-committed business
>>decision, of the pending action.
>>
>>     john
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ietf mailing list
>Ietf@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
>