Subject: [tlp-interest] Proposed Policy for Modifications to Trust Legal Provisions (TLP)

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:49:15 -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: 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
>   a. In case 1a: this can be an individual submission ID or a ID  
> from a WG
> 5. 30 day community review period of the proposed changes (or  
> decision not
>   to change).
>

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott O. Bradner)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 09:19:56 -0400 (EDT)

Marshall - thanks for this proposal

at first read it seems to deal with all of the issues I brought up 
in my mail earlier in this process

one other think that you might want to add is some details
on how the trust will actually deal with an appeal - there is
an appeal currently on teh table and as far as I can tell it has not 
even been acknowledged

I'd suggest some bullets like

when an appeal is received
	1/ the Trust will acknowledge the appeal within 2
	   business days
	2/ within X business days the Trust will publish a schedule
	   for evaluating the appeal
	3/ ...

maybe ask for comments on the tlp-interest list etc

whatever the Trust feels is a good process 

tnx

Scott