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

[Stephan Wenger <stewe at stewe.org>]

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" <tme at americafree.tv> wrote:

> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf