Subject: Proposed Policy for Modifications to Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 11:02:40 -0400

Greetings;

During the last review of the Trust Legal Provisions (TLP),
it became clear that there is no clear
procedure for modifying the TLP.  The current TLP only states that a new
version may be published for community review but not who can ask for  
a change,
where announcements are sent, where the changes can be discussed and  
many
other things.  As a consequence, there have been questions about why  
the IETF Trust is proposing changes to the TLP, the problems that the  
changes fix, and the consequences of the changes.

In order to solve this problem, we have drafted a conceptual procedure  
for modifying
the TLP in the future.  This procedure can be found below.  We want to  
engage in a dialogue on these general concepts. Note that in items  
1,2,3,4 and 6, there is an implicit "Or" between each of the choices.

Assuming that consensus on the general ideas can be reached, the Trust
will submit a document describing this process in mid-September, 2009.  
I invite
interested parties to read and comment. This will be disseminated to  
the IETF Discuss and announce list, WG Chairs list, the old IPR WG  
List, the RFC Editor List and the IESG, IAB and IRSG lists. Please  
feel free to disseminate it to other interested parties, and please  
let me know if I left out a suitable list to alert.

Regards
Marshall Eubanks

-----------------------------------------------------
Comments sought for:  Standard Procedure for Modifying the TLP

1. An issue with the current TLP is identified:
    a. (Some subset of) the community wants something different from
       what the TLP currently says.
    b. The trust (or its legal counsel) finds a problem itself.
    c. There is a request from one of the other bodies (IRTF, IAB, IESG,
       independent stream, etc) for which the trust manages something.

2. Whoever brings up the problem, writes a problem statement.
    a. In case 1a: this can be an individual submission ID or a ID  
from a WG
       chartered to discuss these items.
    b. In case 1b: A note from the trust to the community.
    c. In case 1c: A note from whoever brings up the issue.

3. Is it really a problem?
    a. If the problem statement was developed in a group effort, then  
it is by
       default.
    b. All other cases, including issues brought up by the Trust  
themselves,
       a short comment period (2 weeks).

4. Trust (with legal counsel) reviews the issue and comes up with a  
response:
    a. No, we don't think changing this is a good idea, because ...

    b. Yes, we suggest to modify the text as follows ... (perhaps with
       some background material why this is the answer).

5. 30 day community review period of the proposed changes (or decision  
not
    to change).

    The trust will engage in discussion with the community.

    If the comments show a clear trend indicating that the proposal  
needs
    a revision, the Trust may withdraw or modify the proposal, publish  
it
    and reset the counter before the comment period is over.

6. Trust evaluates responses.  Possible outcomes are:
    a. There is consensus about the change => Go to 7.
    b. There is consensus but textual changes are needed =>
       Trust modifies the text, go back step 5, but with a 14 day
       review period.
    c. There is no consensus => drop proposal (and explain why).

7. Publish new TLP.

Announcements: All announcements to go to the ietf-announce list plus
   the equivalent for the other streams.  Discussion will take place
   on the TLP mailing list.

Emergencies.  An emergency is defined as "there is a problem with the
   TLP that is likely to be abused".  In these cases, the trust can  
publish
   a modified text for a 2 week review period, then modify the TLP.  The
   Trust must explain the reason for the change.

Appeals: use the process from RFC 4071 for the IAOC, with IAOC
   replaced by Trust.

   If a member of the community is not satisfied with the Trusts's
   response to his or her review request, he or she may escalate the
   issue by appealing the decision or action to the IAB, using the
   appeals procedures outlined in RFC 2026 [RFC 2026].  If he or she is
   not satisfied with the IAB response, he or she can escalate the issue
   to the ISOC Board of Trustees, as described in RFC 2026.

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:29:08 +0200

Hi Marshall, all,

This is a good proposal.

Would it be possible to enhance the review periods (steps 5 and 6) from
30/14 days to something like 60/30 days, respectively?  Many people will
need to go through corporate counsel on matters like this, which can be time
consuming.  30 days is a quite typical vacation period in many European
countries.  And, for emergencies, there is the emergency procedure with 14
days review period (which I do not propose to adjust).

Regards,
Stephan

On 8/17/09 5:02 PM, "Marshall Eubanks" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 11:49:04 -0400

On Aug 17, 2009, at 11:25 AM, Marc Blanchet wrote:

> Marshall Eubanks a écrit :
>>
> I have a hard time thinking of an emergency that can be fixed by a
> timely change in the TLP which would likely require a lot of heavy  
> legal
> advice and related work and coordination. Changes in policies may have
> important impacts over time that would probably require enough time to
> review. To me, the TLP should be a pretty stable document.
>
> However, I might think of an emergency for a immediate legal action,  
> but
> not sure about an emergency change in the TLP.
>
> I guess I need to be educated on the use case for the emergency track.
>

My personal feeling is that we won't really know until we have had a  
few, which hopefully will take
a very long time. But, it seems worthwhile to have some sort of "in  
case of emergency, break glass"
procedure.

And, I agree, I hope that the TLP becomes a very stable document.

Regards
Marshall

> Marc.
>
> -- 
> =========
> IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley. http://www.ipv6book.ca
> Stun/Turn server for VoIP NAT-FW traversal: http://numb.viagenie.ca
> DTN news service: http://reeves.viagenie.ca
>
>

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:55:19 -0400

The tlp-interest mail list is now active, for people who wish to  
discuss TLP issues there.

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tlp-interest

Regards
Marshall

On Aug 17, 2009, at 11:02 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:

> version may be published for community review but not who can ask  
> for a change,
> the IETF Trust is proposing changes to the TLP, the problems that  
> the changes fix, and the consequences of the changes.
>
> In order to solve this problem, we have drafted a conceptual  
> procedure for modifying
> the TLP in the future.  This procedure can be found below.  We want  
> to engage in a dialogue on these general concepts. Note that in  
> items 1,2,3,4 and 6, there is an implicit "Or" between each of the  
> choices.
>
> will submit a document describing this process in mid-September,  
> 2009. I invite
> 5. 30 day community review period of the proposed changes (or  
> decision not
>   to change).
>

---

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 11:25:10 -0400

Marshall Eubanks a écrit :
>   TLP that is likely to be abused".  In these cases, the trust can publish

timely change in the TLP which would likely require a lot of heavy legal

However, I might think of an emergency for a immediate legal action, but
not sure about an emergency change in the TLP.

Marc.

---

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 11:56:17 -0400

Marshall Eubanks a écrit :
> a very long time. But, it seems worthwhile to have some sort of "in case
> of emergency, break glass"
> procedure.

the other side of the argument is being: the TLP is so central and
important that if one wants to change it, it has to go through a
somewhat "not fast" concensus-based process. i.e. this is a stable
document and we don't want to change it over night.

I still need to be educated for the use case of the emergency track.
Maybe I'm the only one here.

Marc.

---

From: "Tadayuki Abraham HATTORI" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 09:13:49 +0900

Dear experts,

Generally, the idea of "provision" includes a kind of "bad debt allowance"
in accounting. How about expanding the idea of  "Trust Legal Provision"?

Gathering statistically of mathematical probability of how setting for bad
debt allowance could be a kind of measurement of ability of estimation
by executives of a corporation.

The best way to growup equity is good choice of executives according to
the ability of estimation.

Standard deviation of probability of adequateness of setting of provisions,
or bad debt allowance at begining could be useful for making the world to
be more better.

I THINK.

regards,

Tadayuki Abraham HATTORI

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Marshall Eubanks" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; "Working Group Chairs" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Trustees" <[email-masked]>; "Internet Research Steering Group" 
<[email-masked]>; "IAB IAB" <[email-masked]>; "IESG" <[email-masked]>; 
<[email-masked]>; "RFC Editor" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 12:02 AM
Subject: Proposed Policy for Modifications to Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)

> version may be published for community review but not who can ask for  a 
> change,
> where announcements are sent, where the changes can be discussed and  many
> other things.  As a consequence, there have been questions about why  the 
> IETF Trust is proposing changes to the TLP, the problems that the  changes 
> fix, and the consequences of the changes.
>
> will submit a document describing this process in mid-September, 2009.  I 
> invite
> interested parties to read and comment. This will be disseminated to  the 
> IETF Discuss and announce list, WG Chairs list, the old IPR WG  List, the 
> RFC Editor List and the IESG, IAB and IRSG lists. Please  feel free to 
> disseminate it to other interested parties, and please  let me know if I 
> left out a suitable list to alert.
>
> Regards
> Marshall Eubanks
>
>    a. In case 1a: this can be an individual submission ID or a ID  from a 
> WG
>    a. If the problem statement was developed in a group effort, then  it 
> is by
>       default.
>    If the comments show a clear trend indicating that the proposal  needs
>    a revision, the Trust may withdraw or modify the proposal, publish  it

---

From: "Endre Jarraux Walls" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 13:47:45 -0400

Tadayuki,

I read your email and am totally scratching my head - not sure where you're
going with that at all.

A point was made earlier by Marc as to what the case would be for an
emergency process to what should be a stabilized process requiring
thoughtful and consistent consideration. I do not know if that question has
been answered; I believe that's the question that really should be answered
here. Why would we need an emergency provision (under what circumstances)?
Also, with the idea of emergency provisions will we identify what qualifies
an issue as falling under the umbrella of requiring this type of
consideration?

My apologies if these questions have been answered; reading Marc's post I
found myself agreeing on the fuzziness of the whole issue.

Regards,

Endre Jarraux Walls

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Tadayuki Abraham HATTORI
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 8:14 PM
To: Marshall Eubanks; [email-masked]; Working Group Chairs
Cc: Trustees; Internet Research Steering Group; IAB IAB; IESG;
[email-masked]; RFC Editor
Subject: Re: Proposed Policy for Modifications to Trust Legal Provisions
(TLP)

Dear experts,

I THINK.

regards,

Tadayuki Abraham HATTORI

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Marshall Eubanks" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; "Working Group Chairs" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Trustees" <[email-masked]>; "Internet Research Steering Group" 

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 4346 (20090818) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 4346 (20090818) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com