Subject: Re: [Iasa20] -02 I-D: Responsibilities & Principles

From: "Livingood, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 16:43:03 +0000

On 5/15/18, 12:07 PM, "John Levine" <[email-masked]> wrote:
    ISOC already deals with all this stuff so how about saying the LLC
    imports each of the ISOC policies unless it explicitly decides to do
    something different.

[JL] That may indeed be what the Board decides to do, and it certainly does seem to be a good way to save time and get a quick start. But my inclination is to avoid proscribing that in the WG's documents, because as noted elsewhere I think it seems best to afford the Board a reasonable amount of flexibility. 

[JL] On this point, this is what the lead in text to this section will say (draft text for the -03): The Board shall develop policies as necessary to achieve the goals of the LLC, meet transparency expectations of the community, comply with applicable laws or regulations, or for other reasons as appropriate. All policies should be developed with input from the IETF community.

---

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 15 May 2018 12:48:42 -0400

> [JL] On this point, this is what the lead in text to this section will say (draft text for the -03): The Board shall develop policies as necessary to achieve the goals of the LLC, meet transparency…

That's where the explicitly deciding to do something different part comes 
in.  A lot of these policies are in practice cut and paste, and it would 
be nice to limit the amount of busywork the new board has to do.

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 13:34:22 -0400

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:48:42PM -0400, John R Levine wrote:

> in.  A lot of these policies are in practice cut and paste, and it would be
> nice to limit the amount of busywork the new board has to do.

And surely we are going to pick sane board members who are smart
enough to do busywork only if they need to?  I still don't see that as
an argument why the WG needs to come up with the constraints.

A (no hat)

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 17:37:03 -0400

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:48 John R Levine <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > [JL] That may indeed be what the Board decides to do, and it certainly
> does seem to be a good way to save time and get a quick start. But my
> inclination is to avoid proscribing that in the WG's documents, because as
> noted elsewhere I think it seems best to afford the Board a reasonable
> amount of flexibility.
> >
> > [JL] On this point, this is what the lead in text to this section will
> say (draft text for the -03): The Board shall develop policies as necessary
> to achieve the goals of the LLC, meet transparency expectations of the
> community, comply with applicable laws or regulations, or for other reasons
> as appropriate. All policies should be developed with input from the IETF
> community.
>

Is there a case to be made for forking (or writing differently) a core
subset of the policies Jason lists above and then adopting others
by-reference to ISOC's (unless the LLC Board explicitly decides otherwise)?
My thinking is that there are ones that are more existential than others
and some explicit independence from ISOC's policies may be wise. Best, Joe

Joseph Lorenzo Hall
Chief Technologist, Center for Democracy & Technology [https://www.cdt.org]
1401 K ST NW STE 200, Washington DC 20005-3497
e: [email-masked], p: 202.407.8825, pgp: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key
Fingerprint: 3CA2 8D7B 9F6D DBD3 4B10  1607 5F86 6987 40A9 A871

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 10:59:58 +1200

> an argument why the WG needs to come up with the constraints.

Agreed. But why not add a sentence saying that the Board may choose
to apply all relevant ISOC Board policies initially (so that they are
under no urgent pressure to perform busywork)?

    Brian