NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 45th IETF Meeting in Oslo, Norway. It may now be out-of-date. Last Modified: 04-Jun-99
Chair(s):
Erik Huizer <Erik.Huizer@sec.nl>
General Area Director(s):
Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
General Area Advisor:
Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
Mailing Lists:
General Discussion:poised@lists.tislabs.com
To Subscribe: poised-request@lists.tislabs.com
Archive: ftp://ftp.tis.com/pub/lists/poised/poised.yymm
Description of Working Group:
The POISED working group in 1993-1994 established the basis of the IETF process in its current form. Poised95 established a base set of documents to describe the essentials of the IETF process. POISSON is concerned with documenting issues relevant to the IETF process.
The name POISSON:
The tricky part of describing the IETF process, certainly in the fast changing world of the Internet, is that when you describe the process in too much detail, the IETF loses its flexibility, when you describe to little it becomes unmanageable. This is therefore a slippery subject, hence the name POISSON, which is French for fish. The French word also serves to indicate the international aspect of the WG.
Furthermore the IETF operates by consensus, which sometimes seems to have a POISSON distribution.
The POISSON WG will work on the following items in 1999:
- Review of copyright issues as described in RFC2026, that describes the Internet standards proces.
- Drafting of an agreement for registration and assignment of protocol parameters as performed by the IANA.
The WG will focus on the operational and technical aspects of the contract. The IETF lawyer will be asked to add the necessary legal phrases.
- Discuss the relationship between IETF and ICANN. Should the IETF be participating in ICANN at all? If so, as part of the ICANN PSO? Under which conditions?
An RFC detailing the position will be published if the WG decides that the IETF should not be part of the ICANN PSO. RFC on proposed ICANN PSO bylaws will be produced if the WG consensus is in favor of joining the PSO. Furthermore, in the latter case an RFC will be produced that describes how ICANN PSO officers (on behalf of the IETF) are to be selected.
- Discuss an update of the Nominations Committee document RFC-2282, if and when the current NomCom has suggestions for changes.
Furthermore, the POISSON WG will review documents that are related to the IETF standards process (but that will not be produced by the POISSON WG itself) when available. Such documents may include:
- IETF Charter; This needs to be written by the IETF chair. It is essentially a short mission statement like document that contains references to other Poised documents for further details.
- IESG Charter; This document will be written by the IESG.
- IAB Charter; The IAB needs to revise its charter (RFC1601).
- Proposals related to standards publishing.
Last but not least, Poisson will serve as a generic platform where the IAB and IESG can discuss policy questions if there is the need for consensus polling.
Goals and Milestones:
Mar 99 |
|
Submit Internet-Draft of second version of proposed IANA contract |
Mar 99 |
|
Submit Internet-Draft of second version of proposed IANA contract |
Mar 99 |
|
Second version of drafts for ICANN PSO bylaws and IETF PSO officer selection, or first draft describing why IETF should not be involved with ICANN |
Mar 99 |
|
Second version of drafts for ICANN PSO bylaws and IETF PSO officer selection, or first draft describing why IETF should not be involved with ICANN |
Mar 99 |
|
Submit Internet-Draft for IETF mailing list blocking |
Mar 99 |
|
Submit Internet-Draft for IETF mailing list blocking |
Mar 99 |
|
Present ICANN related issues at IETF plenary |
Mar 99 |
|
Present ICANN related issues at IETF plenary |
Jun 99 |
|
Submit final version of all drafts |
Jun 99 |
|
Submit final version of all drafts |
Jul 99 |
|
Submit Internet-Drafts to IESG for publication as RFCs. |
Jul 99 |
|
Submit Internet-Drafts to IESG for publication as RFCs. |
Internet-Drafts:
· Bylaws for a Protocol Support Organization
· Procedures for IETF appointments to the Protocol Supporting Organization
· IETF Discussion List Charter
· A Proposal for an MOU-Based ICANN Protocol Support Organization
Request For Comments:
RFC |
Status |
Title |
RFC2282 |
IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees | |
RFC2418 |
IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures | |
Poisson Meeting Meetings
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 draft of an MOU about IANA services for the IETF was ready to be sent to ICANN. Its technical content was the same as was debated on the POISSON list some months ago.
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 IAB and IESG 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.
- 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 either from the previous year's voting members or previous 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- 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 draft.
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 MOU.
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 Telecommunications Standards Institute, ETSI). (See attachment #1, poisson-req.ppt, for slides outlining the MOU's requirements for consideration as a PSO-qualified SDO.) 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.
The slides from Scott's presentation are available as attachment #2, mou.oslo.ppt.
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.
International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Protocol Supporting Organization Memorandum of Understanding
Requirements