Structure of the IETF Administrative Support Activity, Version 2.0
draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis-11

[Ballot comment]
Four paragraphs is fairly long for an Abstract.

Section 1

                                                          Under this
  structure, the Internet Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) is
  eliminated, and its oversight and advising functions transferred to
  the IETF LLC Board.

(I note that the Abstract uses the past tense "was eliminated", and also
differs about whether the 'I' is "Internet" or "IETF".)
Are we comfortable tossing out the concept of the IAOC with no lead-up
or reference?

Section 2

It's great to say that no changes are made, but that doesn't help
someone looking for the current procedures if we don't provide a
reference to what the current procedures are.

Section 4.2

  o  The Board of Directors of the IETF LLC - formally a multi-member
      "manager" of the IETF LLC on behalf of ISOC - assumes the
      oversight responsibilities of the IAOC.

I'm not sure whether there's any ambiguity about whether "of" means
"over" or "from", to a reader who doesn't already know that it means
"from".

Section 6.2

  As noted above, a maximum of two Directors may be appointed by the
  IETF LLC Board.  They can obviously choose to appoint none, one, or
  two.  These appointments need not be on an exceptional basis, but
  rather be routine, and may occur at any time of the year since it is
  on an as-needed basis.

nit: I think there's a word missing here, maybe in "can rather be routine".
There also seems to be a singular/plural mismatch between "these" and
"it".

  The appointment of a Board-appointed Director requires a two-thirds
  majority vote of the Directors then in office, and the appointee
  shall take office immediately upon appointment.  [...]

Upon appointment, or upon appointment *and confirmation*?

  The Board may decide on a case-by-case basis how long each term shall
  be, factoring in the restriction for consecutive terms in
  Section 6.4.

Section 6.5 also seems relevant.

Section 6.10

                                    If a quorum is not present at any
  meeting of the Board, the Directors present may adjourn the meeting
  from time to time, without notice other than announcement at the
  meeting, until a quorum is present.  [...]

I'm not sure I understand the purpose of "from time to time" in this
sentence.  (Barry seems to have covered this already, though.)

Section 7.7

  The IETF LLC exists to support the IETF, IAB, and IRTF.  Therefore,
  the IETF LLC's funding and all revenues, in-kind contributions, and
  other income that comprise that funding shall be used solely to
  support activities related to the IETF, IAB, IRTF, and RFC Editor,
  and for no other purposes.

Why are the lists in the first and second sentences different?

[Ballot 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"

[Ballot comment]
Version -09 resolves my DISCUSS by making it clear that the limitations on the IESG appointment that I was concerned about do not exist.  Thanks. for the lively discussion on that point.

This non-DISCUSS comment is still applicable to -09:
>> — Section 6.10 —
>> What does “from time to time” mean here?  I can’t figure out how to fit the
>> normal English meaning of the idiom in here
>
> Hmmm, I don't find this confusing but a term like "as needed" may be more clear?
> I don't think we intend to limit the ability of the board to adjourn official business
> until they can get a quorum of folks in the room.

Ah, I see what you're getting at, then.  So I would just remove the
phrase altogether; what remains says exactly what you mean:

NEW
  If a quorum is not present at any
  meeting of the Board, the Directors present may adjourn the meeting
  without notice, other than announcement at the
  meeting, until a quorum is present.
END

--------------------
And these are left here for the record, but no action is expected:

— Section 4.1 —
Is there a difference, now, between the meanings of “IASA” and “IASA 2.0”?

— Section 6.9 —
I’ll point out that two thirds of 5 is not 3, so both a quorum and a vote on an “act of the Board” require a supermajority of 4 out of 5 Directors.  That seems like it could end up being problematic.

[Ballot discuss]
Having not followed this at all I do see some question marks in regards to the IRTF that I would like to have clarification on thus the Discuss position.

Why isn't IRTF disucssed in this section, or having its own section of similar nature?

4.6.  Relationship of the IETF LLC Board to the IETF Leadership

  The IETF LLC Board is directly accountable to the IETF community for
  the performance of the IASA 2.0.  However, the nature of the Board's
  work involves treating the IESG and IAB as major internal customers
  of the administrative support services.  The Board and the IETF
  Executive Director should not consider their work successful unless
  the IESG and IAB are also satisfied with the administrative support
  that the IETF is receiving.

Can someone please explain why the IETF LLC role for IRTF are almost not at all described? For example is IRTF not a significant internal customer?

Also, what is the relation between the IRTF and IETF community? As the IETF community does not appear to have a definition, it is not possible to determine if IRTF is counted as part of the IETF community or not. In my thinking the IETF and IRTF communities are not the same set, and it is not obvious that IETF community is the super set.

I think some clarification on the IRTFs relation are needed in this document.

[Ballot discuss]
Why isn't IRTF disucssed in this section, or having its own section of similar nature?

4.6.  Relationship of the IETF LLC Board to the IETF Leadership

  The IETF LLC Board is directly accountable to the IETF community for
  the performance of the IASA 2.0.  However, the nature of the Board's
  work involves treating the IESG and IAB as major internal customers
  of the administrative support services.  The Board and the IETF
  Executive Director should not consider their work successful unless
  the IESG and IAB are also satisfied with the administrative support
  that the IETF is receiving.

Can someone please explain why the IETF LLC role for IRTF are almost not at all described? For example is IRTF not a significant internal customer?

[Ballot discuss]
— Section 6.4 —
Adding to what Mirja notes about a two-year term for the IESG appointee: the text here clearly assumes it will be the IETF Chair, allows it not to be, but makes that situation awkward.  Each IESG should be able to change the appointment if it thinks it appropriate.  In particular, we chose the IETF chair this time to maintain continuity with the transition, but we might prefer, once the startup tasks are done, to move to someone else in order to lighten the load on the IETF Chair position.  I think such delegation is important.

So for a number of reasons, a one-year term makes more sense, perhaps with text encouraging reappointment for two or three years, would be better (along with appropriate changes to term limits in 6.5 to specify years rather than terms).  Did the working group specifically discuss and reject this?  Or was it just aligned to the IETF Chair’s term without giving consideration to these points?

[Ballot comment]
— Section 4.1 —
Is there a difference, now, between the meanings of “IASA” and “IASA 2.0”?

— Section 6.9 —
I’ll point out that two thirds of 5 is not 3, so both a quorum and a vote on an “act of the Board” require a supermajority of 4 out of 5 Directors.  That seems like it could end up being problematic.

— Section 6.10 —
What does “from time to time” mean here?  I can’t figure out how to fit the normal English meaning of the idiom in here.

[Ballot comment]
One high level question: I would have expected that this document also says something about interaction with the IETF Trust. Or are there none?

I believe my other comments below are mostly editorial, however, I also have a few question. Sorry, if those questions have been discussed earlier.

1) I find it rather confusing to have a reference to [ietf101-slides] in the doc (given the pictures there are not fully up to date). I don't think that particular reference is needed to make the point about transparency.

2) Sec 4.4.: "Unification: The IETF LLC provides the corporate legal home for
      the IETF, the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), and the Internet
      Research Task Force (IRTF), and financial support for the
      operation of the RFC Editor."
I'm wondering why the RFC Editor is named here but no other services the IETF contracts with...?

Similar in section 7: "environment within which the work of the IETF, IAB,
  IRTF, and RFC Editor can remain vibrant and productive."
I understand that the money flow is different for e.g. IANA, however, they also provide an important function.

And similar in section 7.7.: "The IETF LLC exists to support the IETF, IAB, and IRTF.  Therefore,
  the IETF LLC's funding and all revenues, in-kind contributions, and
  other income that comprise that funding shall be used solely to
  support activities related to the IETF, IAB, IRTF, and RFC Editor,
  and for no other purposes."

3) sec 4.7: Is it appropriate to have the LLC Broad review its own decision instead of having an independent entity to do that? 

4) Regarding the IESG delegate for the LLC Board, sec 6.4 states that the term is 2 years. That makes sense if the IETF chairs takes that position which should be the usual case. However, if another IESG member would take the position, is the expectation that the IESG can only select someone whose AD term just started? Or would that person be the delegate for 2 years even if he or she leaves the IESG after one year? Also would the IESG be able to remove or change the delegate before the end of that term? I guess that second question also applies to the appointee from ISOC...

5) sec 6.12: "The IETF, IAB and IRTF chairs, and the chair
of ISOC's Board, will be ineligible for this Board Chair role."
Are the IAB and IRTF chair listed here because they could be NomCom- or IESG- selected Board members? Or is that an oversight?

Also then this is picked up in section 8.1 again:
"The IETF, ISOC Board, IAB, or IRTF chair cannot be chair of the
      IETF LLC Board, though they may serve as a Director."
However the following sentence in the same section, seem to assume that this policy is not defined in this doc but developed by the Board in future.
"The Board is expected to maintain a Conflict of Interest policy for
  the IETF LLC. "


nit:
s/agreements that that meet a significant materiality threshold/agreements that meet a significant materiality threshold/ -> 2x that

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis-08, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-03-18):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis@ietf.org, jon.peterson@neustar.biz, iasa20@ietf.org, alissa@cooperw.in, Jon Peterson , iasa2-chairs@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Structure of the IETF Administrative Support Activity, Version 2.0) to Best Current Practice


The IESG has received a request from the IETF Administrative Support Activity
2 WG (iasa2) to consider the following document: - 'Structure of the IETF
Administrative Support Activity, Version 2.0'
  as Best Current Practice

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2019-03-18. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of
the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  The IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) was originally
  established in 2005.  In the years since then, the needs of the IETF
  evolved in ways that required changes to its administrative
  structure.  The purpose of this document is to document and describe
  the IASA 2.0 structure.

  Under IASA 2.0, the work of the IETF's administrative and fundraising
  tasks is conducted by an administrative organization, the IETF
  Administration Limited Liability Company ("IETF LLC").  Under this
  structure, the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) was
  eliminated, and its oversight and advising functions transferred to
  the IETF LLC Board.

  The IETF LLC provides the corporate legal home for the IETF, the
  Internet Architecture Board (IAB), and the Internet Research Task
  Force (IRTF), and financial support for the operation of the RFC
  Editor.

  This document describes the structure of the IETF Administrative
  Support Activity, version 2 (IASA 2.0).  It defines the roles and
  responsibilities of the IETF LLC Board, the IETF Executive Director,
  and ISOC in the fiscal and administrative support of the IETF
  standards process.  It also defines the membership and selection
  rules for the IETF LLC Board.

  This document obsoletes RFC 4071, RFC 4333, and RFC 7691.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis: IAB, IESG, IETF Trust and IETF LLC Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the IETF Nominating and Recall Committees (None - IETF stream)
    draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc2031bis: The IETF-ISOC Relationship (None - IETF stream)

1. Summary

draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis defines the structure of version 2.0 of the IASA. Broadly, it describes the relationship between the IETF and the IETF Administration Limited Liability Company (LLC), which is itself specified in a separate company agreement. rfc4071bis covers the changes from the previous IASA model, and in particular defines the responsibilities of the new IETF Executive Director role and the LLC Board. It clarifies the way in which the IETF community and leadership interface with the Executive Director and the Board, showing how these differ from the former relationships with the IAD and IAOC.

As this is the primary document describing the IASA, and a successor to RFC4071, it is proposed as a BCP. It will obsolete RFC4071, and also two IAOC-specific specifications, RFC4333 and RFC7961, if it is approved.

2. Review and Consensus

This document has had a lively journey through the IASA2 WG. It was originally conceived as an informational document (draft-ietf-iasa2-struct) which recorded the motivations and consensus decisions of the WG. As it became increasingly apparent that other working group documents would need to rely normatively on its contents, it was retooled into a bis of RFC4071, the document which described the original IASA structure resulting from the adminrest process.

The core idea behind the new structure has had plenty of time to sink in with working group participants. A great deal of discussion went into how the LLC Board is constituted, ensuring that the community has the necessary visibility and input into its process, and into how this relates to the many potential loose ends that must be connected back to our historical operations. draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis has been under intense working group scrutiny, as it must be properly aligned with the many specifications that rely upon it. This has included detailed line-by-line reviews. The chairs believe it has been thoroughly scrutinized and that the working group strongly supports its advancement. This is the cornerstone document of IASA 2.0.

3. Intellectual Property

This document is not a protocol specification and it contains no technical solutions that might require a disclosure.

4. Other Points

References should be removed from the Abstract before publication.

Although the reference to the IETF LLC Company Agreement registers as a downref in IDnits, the reliance of this document on the Agreement is significant enough to warrant making an exception.

1. Summary

draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis defines the structure of version 2.0 of the IASA. Broadly, it describes the relationship between the IETF and the IETF Administration Limited Liability Company (LLC), which is itself specified in a separate company agreement. rfc4071bis covers the changes from the previous IASA model, and in particular defines the responsibilities of the new IETF Executive Director role and the LLC Board. It clarifies the way in which the IETF community and leadership interface with the Executive Director and the Board, showing how these differ from the former relationships with the IAD and IAOC.

As this is the primary document describing the IASA, and a successor to RFC4071, it is proposed as a BCP. It will obsolete RFC4071, and also two IAOC-specific specifications, RFC4333 and RFC7961, if it is approved.

2. Review and Consensus

This document has had a lively journey through the IASA2 WG. It was originally conceived as an informational document (draft-ietf-iasa2-struct) which recorded the motivations and consensus decisions of the WG. As it became increasingly apparent that other working group documents would need to rely normatively on its contents, it was retooled into a bis of RFC4071, the document which described the original IASA structure resulting from the adminrest process.

The core idea behind the new structure has had plenty of time to sink in with working group participants. A great deal of discussion went into how the LLC Board is constituted, ensuring that the community has the necessary visibility and input into its process, and into how this relates to the many potential loose ends that must be connected back to our historical operations. draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis has been under intense working group scrutiny, as it must be properly aligned with the many specifications that rely upon it. This has included detailed line-by-line reviews. The chairs believe it has been thoroughly scrutinized and that the working group strongly supports its advancement. This is the cornerstone document of IASA 2.0.

3. Intellectual Property

This document is not a protocol specification and it contains no technical solutions that might require a disclosure.

4. Other Points

References should be removed from the Abstract before publication.

Although the reference to the IETF LLC Company Agreement registers as a downref in IDnits, the reliance of this document on the Agreement is significant enough to warrant making an exception.

1. Summary

draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis defines the structure of version 2.0 of the IASA. Broadly, it describes the relationship between the IETF and the IETF Administration Limited Liability Company (LLC), which is itself specified in a separate company agreement. rfc4071bis covers the changes from the previous IASA model, and in particular defines the responsibilities of the new IETF Executive Director role and the LLC Board. It clarifies the way in which the IETF community and leadership interface with the Executive Director and the Board, showing how these differ from the former relationships with the IAD and IAOC.

As this is the primary document describing the IASA, and a successor to RFC4071, it is proposed as a BCP. It will obsolete RFC4071, and also two IAOC-specific specifications, RFC4333 and RFC7961, if it is approved.

2. Review and Consensus

This document has had a lively journey through the IASA2 WG. It was originally conceived as an informational document (draft-ietf-iasa2-struct) which recorded the motivations and consensus decisions of the WG. As it became increasingly apparent that other working group documents would need to rely normatively on its contents, it was retooled into a bis of RFC4071, the document which described the original IASA structure resulting from the adminrest process.

The core idea behind the new structure has had plenty of time to sink in with working group participants. A great deal of discussion went into how the LLC Board is constituted, ensuring that the community has the necessary visibility and input into its process, and into how this relates to the many potential loose ends that must be connected back to our historical operations. draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis has been under intense working group scrutiny, as it must be properly aligned with the many specifications that rely upon it. This has included detailed line-by-line reviews. The chairs believe it has been thoroughly scrutinized and that the working group strongly supports its advancement. This is the cornerstone document of IASA 2.0.

3. Intellectual Property

This document is not a protocol specification and it contains no technical solutions that might require a disclosure.

4. Other Points

References should be removed from the Abstract before publication.

Should the reference to the IETF LLC Company Agreement be normative? It is always a bit of a stretch to understand normative and informative when we apply them to process concepts. Having it merely be informative feels weak.