Subject: Re: [Iasa20] The consolidated update draft - draft-ietf-iasa2-consolidated-upd

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 20:22:45 -0500

--On Wednesday, November 21, 2018 14:26 -0800 Bob Hinden
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Yes, I understood that.  The issue I have is that we have
> created a new legal entity with out having a finalized
> document that describes it.  As far as I can tell, we have not
> even had an IETF last call, nor an IETF consensus to proceed
> with it's implementation.
> 
> This seems odd to me.

Bob,

Let me try a different perspective on this to see if it helps.
First of all, while I agree the situation is odd, I suggest that
almost every significant structural or administrative change
we've made to the IETF, going back to at least POISED and
Marshall Rose's "road kill" talk (apologies to those whose
memories don't go back that far) has been odd in some fairly
important way.  If we wait for solidly not-odd, we don't get
anything done.  I also suggest that, if we try to sort the
details of this type of change using traditional, non-odd, IETF
processes, we find ourselves up to our eyeballs in amateur
lawyers, debating options that are either implausible or
irrelevant, we discover the the IETF community contains far more
knowledge of network protocols and engineering than of
organizational or legal structures, and we don't get better
results.  I think we know that because we have tried applying
the same processes we use for protocol design to structural/
procedural changes several times and gotten those effects and
results even if things work out in the end.

It seems to me that we could invest a good deal of time and
energy figuring out how we got to where we are now, what might
have been done differently, and where assorted fingers should
point.  At least unless one is on the Nomcom, I'm not convinced
any of that would be productive.

So, let me suggest a different approach and suggest it largely
because I believe the IETF and the Internet are facing technical
problems that we could be working on and contributing to
solutions for and that most of us could be contributing far
more by spending time and energy on those problems than by
kicking these administrative issues back and forth... or even by
wishing we had gotten to where we are along a different path.

>From that point of view, we take the Administration LLC legal
agreement as a given.  To a considerable extent, "we" didn't
create it.  ISOC did, they are not subject to our review rules
and procedures, and that is another part of our reality. There
is a finalized document that describes it and it is the LLC
legal agreement, not -struct or anything else directly under the
control of the WG or, ultimately (at least going forward) the
IETF.  Oddities or not, pretending otherwise is a waste of time.
The LLC legal agreement isn't, IMO, perfect, but it is what we
have (maybe we should be celebrating because it didn't come out
much worse... it might have.  I have argued in other contexts
that one of the IETF's strengths is that we've traditionally put
common sense and getting the right things to happen over
procedures that spell every detail out and rigid adherence to
those procedures.  That position depends on something else: in
the presence of sufficient goodwill and agreement about goals
and objectives, it doesn't make much difference what the details
of the procedures are; in their absence, it unfortunately
doesn't make much difference either.

So I think we should 

* Take the LLC Legal Agreement as a given and try to make sure
that anything that is produced to define IASA 2.0 is consistent
with it and its terminology.  "Anything" starts with -struct but
includes anything else the WG needs to produce.

* Where the LLC Legal Agreement leaves gaps or is ambiguous, use
WG documents to clarify intent.    My issue with liaisons may be
an example of such a gap.  I don't think there are many more and
don't think any are more significant than that.  People who
think otherwise might start making a list.

* Conclude that, regardless of the earlier WG consensus to
replace procedural documents rather than updating them, we've
now got enough evidence that replacing those documents is
impractical, especially given the apparent limited energy in the
WGs for careful reviews.  Such review energy as exists should be
focused on those documents --and as small a number of them as
possible-- that are absolutely necessary.

* Expand draft-ietf-iasa2-consolidated-upd to included
everything else that needs to be identified as "updated", with
whatever explanations are needed (but as little of that as
possible on the "more text is more opportunity to get things
wrong" principle) and to make sure that any gray areas are
clarified.  That should include any documents that the process
Brian suggests can identify, but with the understanding that it
isn't as mechanical a process as his note seems to imply
because it now seems clear that every use of "Executive
Director" or "ExecDir" needs to be checked, as does every use of
"IETF Administrative Director" or "IAD".

One thing I think is important about the above list is that I
don't think we are very far away from being finished.  Clearly
-struct, and maybe the two Trust documents, need to be checked
and updated carefully, but the rest, while not quite mechanical,
should not be a big deal if those who care (or who have been
dragged into caring) pitch in.

Finally, despite comments (including mine) about the LLC Legal
Agreement being chiseled into stone, it isn't true and we know
it.   Let's take what we have, try it for a few years, and then
do a review --ideally jointly with ISOC-- to figure out what, if
anything, we need to adjust and then make those changes.  Trying
to get everything perfect now requires more ability to predict
the future and understand the implications of everything than I
think we have the talent to do today.  My own guess is that we
are likely to want to take another look at how we appoint
Directors or at least at the advice about them that is given to
the Nomcom and others.   But that is just a guess --that might
not turn out to be an issue or there may be more important ones.
Let's try to get some experience before we try to speculatively
re-tune things.

best,
    john

---

From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 18:13:27 -0500

On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 8:22 PM John C Klensin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> IETF.

I have to take issue with this. The LLC legal agreement was hammered
out by IETF counsel and ISOC counsel with the aid of outside counsel
(e.g., tax attorneys that know the vagaries of various legal
structural options) and this WG had the opportunity to weigh in, read
it, shape it, and many other verbs to it since Jari's email on 3-Nov
2016 that started the IASA2 effort. We were loud about the process,
held two virtual workshops, IETF BoFs, and the WG meetings.

I am glad you are contributing now, John, thank you.

-- 
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: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 Nov 2018 00:45:43 -0000

In article <CABtrr-UXP_Ua6yUyYQ=[email-masked]>,
Joseph Lorenzo Hall  <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> create it.  ISOC did, ...

>held two virtual workshops, IETF BoFs, and the WG meetings.

Joe is right.  I'm on the ISOC board and I can assure you that the
plan for the LLC came from the IETF and ISOC's involvement was just to
ensure that the budgets and the transition plan made sense.  

Kathy had been complaining for years that there was no firewall
between ISOC and the IETF, and she was certainly happy to see that it
was set up, but it was not her idea or her initiative.

R's,
John
-- 
Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 14:04:50 +1300

> was set up, but it was not her idea or her initiative.

I suspect John is making a slightly different point. IASA1 was set up
after a formal IETF Last Call on a BCP and formal approval by the IESG.
IASA2 was set up while that BCP was still in force (and it still is in
force). So while there has been debate and consensus-forming in this WG,
the IETF-wide formalities have been, let's say, slightly sketchy.

No implication of any evil-doing here, however.

    Brian

---

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 26 Nov 2018 21:13:23 -0500

> the IETF-wide formalities have been, let's say, slightly sketchy.

If that's that point he meant to make, it's not what he said.  "We didn't 
create it.  ISOC did" is pretty clear.

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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 16:29:32 +1300

Amplifying my "slightly sketchy" comment below:

> the IETF-wide formalities have been, let's say, slightly sketchy.

The iasa2 WG charter says 
"The main deliverable will be a document that obsoletes RFC 4071."
The actual decision to take the LLC route was embedded in the WG
review message (draft charter) and in the WG formation message (the
approved charter).

The only message I can find about that charter in the [email-masked]
archive is my own:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/2BnBc33vpP7CVvfG0brleAAsZfY
It amazed me at the time that there was no discussion.

> No implication of any evil-doing here, however.

And nothing was done in secrecy. It just seems that 100% of the
people interested are on this list, and 0% of IETF participants who
are not on this list had anything to say when the decision was
open for debate.

   Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 16:35:01 +1300

> create it.  ISOC did" is pretty clear.

Yes, but they did it because we asked them to, and did so after a
somewhat unusual IETF process (see my immediately preceding message).

    Brian

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 20:37:33 -0800

Joe,

> On Nov 26, 2018, at 3:13 PM, Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

All true, but what’s not in that list is the IASA 2.0 w.g. advancing this to the IESG, an IETF Last Call, and the IESG declaring a consensus.  That is, it’s missing the process that we used to create BCP101.

Bob

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 08:21:11 +0200

Hi,

What follows is my personal opinion, and is not an "ISOC position" or
anything like that.  It is nevertheless informed by my experience as
IAB chair (and therefore IAOC member) from 2015 to 2017, as IAOC
member in 2018 until the IAOC wound down, and as current ISOC CEO.  

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 06:13:27PM -0500, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
> > and procedures, and that is another part of our reality.

> held two virtual workshops, IETF BoFs, and the WG meetings.

I think I read John's remark in a different way than Joe did, and I
think both points of view may be true.

I read John's point to be that, from a formal and legal point of view,
prior to the creation of the LLC the IETF just _was_ ISOC: an
organized activity of the Internet Society.  Regardless of such
understandings as might be in place, the plain fact is that the way
the IETF work is organized for formal and legal purposes was really a
matter for ISOC's management (subject to BoT oversight) to decide.
This was, indeed, part of the structural trouble we had in having the
IAOC oversee the IAD: from a legal point of view, all the "oversight"
was just advice, because formally the IAD was ISOC's employee and so
that's where the responsibility and authority lay.  So, to a large
extent, the procedures that would make changes to these arrangements
are out of our (IETF's) hands, even with all the good will in the
world.  I read John to be arguing that we ought to embrace that fact,
rather than chafe against it, but given the difficult discussions it's
not so surprising that others might read this instead as implying that
ISOC was somehow imposing something on the IETF.

I think Joe's (quite correct) point is that, as a practical matter,
the process attempted to involve the IETF and its formal procedures in
as many practical ways as possible.  I also believe this.  But the
legal agreement itself was simply never going to be a matter for WG
consensus for the very same reasons the IASA was invented in the first
place: legal agreements cannot be worked out by a committee of the
size and shape of IETF WGs.  The IETF and its participants
individually have many talents, but legal expertise is in notable
short supply.  Moreover, legal agreements need to be _worked out_,
which means that someone who is undertaking negotiation needs to have
the power to commit to a position or else the negotiation will never
terminate.  So, some IETF participants might be surprised that certain
decisions were implicitly committed as soon as the WG charter was
finalised.  That is not completely unusual in IETF processes, but it
has some practical consequences in this case that, perhaps, not
everyone had foremost in mind when those commitments happened.

Oh John Levine's remark (downthread) about who initiated what, I think
I would describe the situation a little differently.  But my personal
history has taught me that it is usually not that useful to argue
about exactly what happened among individuals in the past, and it is
even less fruitful to argue about what someone's motivation was (or
who that someone was).  I think it suffices to say that, by the time
the IASA arrangement was 10, we collectively had enough evidence that
it needed some improvement to motivate work on such an effort.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 10:12:53 +0200

> >>>>> agreement as a given.  To a considerable extent, "we" didn't

So while we did not create it we should create one within a draft, put in
what we agree and put in what we don't agree, therefore we show the real
final clear agreement. An agreement always can be adjusted while its
life among organisations.

> > create it.  ISOC did" is pretty clear.

It is always important for IETF is to make comments/changes on any RFC or
any agreement or any protocol, so we do that through IETF procedures and
WGs and IESG. Any agreement may be changed for the best of major-customers.

> somewhat unusual IETF process (see my immediately preceding message).

We can ask others to assist, but we still follow our administration
procedures/process.

AB

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 09:53:06 -0500

> On Nov 26, 2018, at 10:29 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

The process this time has certainly been different from the first time. Those differences are reflected in the charter of this WG, which talks about parallel processes for legal document review and IETF document review. People may recall that after the WG had discussed the legal documents at length, they went out for IETF-wide last call [1] while draft-ietf-iasa2-struct was in WGLC. There was a bunch of further discussion after that last call and edits were incorporated before the documents were finalized [2].

> It amazed me at the time that there was no discussion.

Me too.

Alissa

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/jI6srLm89JSliaU0EgDfblPxudI# <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/jI6srLm89JSliaU0EgDfblPxudI#>
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iasa20/aAyfDnAE69tPR6jZqoFYeJXUc24 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iasa20/aAyfDnAE69tPR6jZqoFYeJXUc24>
> _______________________________________________
> iasa20 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20