[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ga] [Fwd: Oslo meeting minutes]


  FYI.  I thought that this would be VERY interesting reading.  It seems

that the IETF is suggesting that the MoU now be modified....


Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

From:  "Susan R. Harris" <srh@merit.edu>
Date:  Wed, 21 Jul 1999 08:30:16 -0400 (EDT)
To:  poised@lists.tislabs.com
Message-ID:  <Pine.SUN.3.95.990721082420.14082D-100000@home.merit.edu>

>Below are Poisson minutes from the 45th IETF, Oslo.
>Erik noted that consensus had been reached on the email list concerning
>the "IETF Discussion List Charter," draft-ietf-poisson-listaup-00.txt.  He
>will now issue a formal last call to the WG, and the document will be
>submitted to the IESG as a BCP. 
>Brian Carpenter reported that the IETF - IANA contract has now been
>completed.  Randy Bush congratulated the IANA for its superior performance
>for many years on behalf of the Internet.
>The group accepted the changes present in version 2 of "IAB and IESG
>Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating
>and Recall Committees," draft-ietf-poisson-nomcom-v2-00.txt.  As reported
>by Jim Galvin, those changes are:
>- In honor of the upcoming Adelaide meeting, the accepted terminology
>  for IETF meetings is now geographic, rather than temporal, i.e., we'll 
>  now refer to each year's "first IETF,"  rather than the "Spring IETF." 
>- Previously, all nomcom member terms began and ended during the
>  first IETF meeting corresponding to the end of the term for which they
>  were confirmed.  Now, it is possible to have member terms overlap
>  during the IETF meeting, if both members agree that they would like the
>  opportunity to work together during the conference.

I believe this was for IESG members, not nomcom members.  See Section
2, item 4.

>- If a member of a previous nomcom wishes to communicate some sort
>  of relevant information to the current committee, it is perfectly
>  acceptable to do so.
>- Any nomcom member may propose the addition of a non-voting
>  advisor to participate in some or all of the deliberations of the
>  committee. There was discussion as to whether there should be a limit of
>  four advisors, and the consensus was that there should be no such limit.
>  Similarly, any nomcom member may propose the addition of a non-voting
>  liaison from other unrepresented organizations to participate in
>  some or all of the deliberations of the committee.  
>- The document now notes that the Chair selects the 10 voting volunteers 
>  using an unbiased and fair method.  Donald Eastlake has kindly prepared an a
>  additional document specifying how to make "fair" choices from the pool of 
>  nominees.  This document is an informative reference, not a normative one.
>- If the Chair finds that he or she will not be able to participate
>  in the next year's nomcom activities, their replacement should come from
>  the pool of prior years' Chairs, rather than from the current member
>  body. This expands the pool of candidates, and ensures that a member 
>  seat will not become vacant if a member is selected as the next Chair.

It exapnds the pool because it can come from EITHER the previous
year's voting members or previous nomcom chairs.

>- The nomcom will now place less discretion on the Chair, and more on
>  the committee itself.  For example, the entire committee will now
>  approve the appointment of a liaison, rather than the Chair alone.
>- The document now states explicitly that when someone becomes a
>  member of the nomcom, they are no longer eligible for an open position.
>Donald noted that the document does not explicitly outline procedures
>for launching and carrying out a recall process.  It was decided to move
>this discussion to the mailing list.  If considerable discussion ensues,
>the issue will be treated separately from the rest of the draft to ensure
>the draft's timely publication.  If there is little or no comment,
>appropriate language concerning recall procedures will be added to the
>Scott Bradner provided a status update on the ICANN Protocol Supporting
>Organization (PSO), which is being created by an MOU among ICANN and an
>international group of standards development organizations (SDO's).  (See
>"A Proposal for an MOU-Based ICANN Protocol Support Organization,"
>draft-ietf-poisson-mou-pso-00.txt.)  By way of background, Scott briefly
>outlined the history of the PSO, which provides for technical review of
>proposals that come before ICANN.  The PSO cannot tell the SDO's how they
>should set standards; rather, its role is to facilitate discussion between
>two SDO's if a dispute arises between them.
>One of the issues discussed at the Minneapolis IETF was the organizational
>relationship between the PSO and ICANN.  It was determined that the PSO
>would be a part of ICANN, not a separate organization.  With this and many
>other matters resolved, a proposal describing the PSO was submitted to
>ICANN, which published the proposal for public comment.  The proposal was
>then approved by the ICANN board, and the next step was to work out the
>The group discussed how much advance notice should be required for open
>meetings of the PSO Protocol Council.  It was decided that 45 days
>provides adequate notice for physical meetings, and the MOU will be
>modified accordingly.  Another change concerns individual appointees of
>the SDO's:  they will now be renewed annually in order to avoid the
>appearance of lifetime appointments.
>Scott noted that the next steps for the IETF are to:
> 1) modify the MOU based on the above changes 
> 2) sign the MOU at the evening plenary session
> 3) nominate the IETF's representative Protocol Council members  
> 4) select the IETF candidate(s) for the PSO's ICANN Board members seats.
>Scott's presentation was followed by a discussion of whether the IETF
>should be a signatory to the MOU, along with the other SDO's (W3C, ITU,
>and the European Technical Standards Institute, ETSI).  It was determined
>that all the signatories meet the SDO criteria outlined in the MOU now, or
>are expected to meet them within the next six months.  The group therefore
>showed clear consensus in favor of the IETF signing the MOU that evening.
>Fred Baker closed the meeting by thanking Erik Huizer for his outstanding
>job leading the POISSON group during the past four years.  Erik has
>resigned his position in order to take up a new role as head of the IRTF.
>The new POISSON chairs will be Jim Galvin and John Klensin.  With this
>transition, the group will be re-chartered and will become a mailing-list
>group, with IETF working group meetings suspended for the time being.