Subject: [Iasa20] Suresh Krishnan's Yes on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis-09: (with COMMENT)

From: Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 19:50:32 -0700

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis-09: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

* Section 1

s/Internet Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC)/IETF Administrative
Oversight Committee (IAOC)/

* Section 3

"maximum unilateral flexibility for the IETF LLC"

What does unilateral mean here? As opposed to what?

* Section 4.1

I would have thought IASA 2.0 would be defined using the definition currently
used for "IASA" and IASA would be defined as the obsoleted version of this
defined in RFC4071.

* Section 4.6

Since this talks about leadership a reference to IRSG may be more appropriate
than the IRTF as a whole?

* Section 6.5

It is not clear from this text if someone serves as a Board appointed director
for a term, whether they are eligible for two more terms using other methods or
only one more. I think this will be worth clarifying.

* Section 7.7

"The IETF LLC exists to support the IETF, IAB, and IRTF"

Not sure why the RFC Editor is left out here. Suggest changing to

"The IETF LLC exists to support the IETF, IAB, IRTF and the RFC Editor"

---

From: Mirja Kuehlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 09:44:36 +0200

> On 11. Apr 2019, at 04:50, Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> * Section 7.7
> 

Because the RFC Editor is a contractor of the LLC, no?

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 09:37:40 -0400

> only one more. I think this will be worth clarifying.

   A director may serve no more than two consecutive terms.  A director
   cannot serve a third term until three years have passed since their
   second consecutive term.

As I read this, a director is an individual.  If the director is Joe
Slabotnik, then I read it as, "Joe Slabotnik may serve no more than
two consecutive terms."  That seems clear to me.

Barry

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 13:40:52 +0000

Hi Barry,

> On Apr 11, 2019, at 9:37 AM, Barry Leiba <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>> * Section 6.5
>> 

It would have been for me as well, but the following text carves out an exception

"An exception to the two consecutive term rule is for an IETF LLC-appointed Director. “

and it is not clear what the exception applies to.

Thanks
Suresh

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 09:43:43 -0400

> and it is not clear what the exception applies to.

It's one of the possible two extra Director positions that the board
itself may appoint.  Again, that seems clear to me.  Do you have
suggested text that would clarify it?

b

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 13:54:03 +0000

Hi Barry,

> On Apr 11, 2019, at 9:43 AM, Barry Leiba <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> itself may appoint.  Again, that seems clear to me.  

The plural terms in "after which any subsequent terms” is what throws me off.

> Do you have

I do have an idea but it lengthens the text. I would add the following text at the end of the exception paragraph

“Please note that the two consecutive term limit still applies in this case."

Thanks
Suresh

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 10:04:06 -0400

> “Please note that the two consecutive term limit still applies in this case."

Ahhhh, I see what your confusion is.  And now I agree with you: it
should be clarified.

b

---

From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 11:36:14 -0400

(getting to your other points shortly, Suresh!)

On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 10:04 AM Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> > I do have an idea but it lengthens the text. I would add the following
> text at the end of the exception paragraph
> >

 Will make this change for -10:

https://github.com/IASA2/draft-ietf-iasa2-struct/issues/103

-- 
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: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 11:47:39 -0400

Thank you for your review! Responses inline with github issues where I see
clear text changes needed:

Thanks, we will make this change. (Noted by Ben K. as well)

> What does unilateral mean here? As opposed to what?
As oppose to having to have ISOC sign contracts, etc. This is the crux of
the entire IASA2 effort. Let me know if I misunderstand you.

> used for "IASA" and IASA would be defined as the obsoleted version of this
Barry raised this as well and my response was to not do anything. I may be
worth further discussion. The essential issue here is that under the
previous regime "IASA" referred to both the generic idea of an
administrative support function and the actual instantiation of it. Now,
since we have a new regime, we've moved to "IASA" being the generic term
for the IETF administrative support function and "IASA 2.0" being this
version of it. If there is text here that could make this less confusing,
we would be receptive.

> than the IRTF as a whole?
We had a discussion on another thread that concluded with IRTF being the
preferred term here:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iasa20/aVqgWjzTCIk2purF71MTYz0MH8g

> only one more. I think this will be worth clarifying.
(as noted on a different email on this thread, we'll make the clarifying
change you proposed:
https://github.com/IASA2/draft-ietf-iasa2-struct/issues/103 )

> "The IETF LLC exists to support the IETF, IAB, IRTF and the RFC Editor"

Ben K. also pointed out how this paragraph has RFC Editor in the second
list but not in the first, as you are proposing. I'd like to hear from the
working group as to what people feel here... is it ok to just add the RFC
Editor to the first or is a parenthetical like I proposed in response to
Ben [1] more of a better fit?

[1]:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iasa20/77H7z8s50cgsCH_KubEHkg6FjBI

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 12:39:39 -0400

> https://github.com/IASA2/draft-ietf-iasa2-struct/issues/103

I'm not happy with the clarification either, because I don't think it
clarifies.  It would now appear to say that it's an exception, but no,
it's not: still two terms.  I think that's because we have two things
here: a limit on number of terms and a limitation on the appointment
mechanism.

Let me suggest this:

OLD
   An exception to the two consecutive term rule is for an IETF LLC-
   appointed Director.  For such a Director, they may serve only one
   term via this appointment method, after which any subsequent terms
   would be occur via other appointment or selection processes (such as
   via the NomCom process).

NEW
   The term limits specified above apply to an individual, even if that
   individual is appointed in different ways over time.  For example, an
   individual appointed to two terms by the ISOC Board of Trustees
   may not immediately be appointed to a third term by the IETF
   NomCom.  A Director appointed by the IETF LLC itself may only
   serve for one term by that appointment method, and any subsequent
   terms would have to be via other methods; in any case, the term
   limits above apply to that individual.

END

I think that gets the exact sense of it.  What do you think?

Barry

---

From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 12:44:06 -0400

On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 12:39 PM Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> >> > I do have an idea but it lengthens the text. I would add the
> following text at the end of the exception paragraph
> >> >

That is crystal clear to me. I'll hold off on this change [1] in case there
is further discussion.

[1]: https://github.com/IASA2/draft-ietf-iasa2-struct/issues/103

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 15:11:12 -0400

--On Thursday, April 11, 2019 12:39 -0400 Barry Leiba
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> I'm not happy with the clarification either, because I don't
> think it clarifies.  It would now appear to say that it's an
> exception, but no, it's not: still two terms.  I think that's
> because we have two things here: a limit on number of terms
> and a limitation on the appointment mechanism.
> 
> Let me suggest this:
> 
> OLD
>    An exception to the two consecutive term rule is for an
> IETF LLC-    appointed Director.  For such a Director, they
> may serve only one    term via this appointment method, after
> which any subsequent terms    would be occur via other
> appointment or selection processes (such as    via the NomCom
> process).
> 
> NEW
>    The term limits specified above apply to an individual,
> even if that    individual is appointed in different ways over
> time.  For example, an    individual appointed to two terms by
> the ISOC Board of Trustees    may not immediately be appointed
> to a third term by the IETF    NomCom.  A Director appointed
> by the IETF LLC itself may only    serve for one term by that
> appointment method, and any subsequent    terms would have to
> be via other methods; in any case, the term    limits above
> apply to that individual.
> 
> END
> 

I think this is just right and that it provides the precision
and clarity that various of us have been asking for.   To me at
least, the precise details chosen are less important than the
clarity but this is fine for both.

   john