Process for Organization of Internet standards Ongoing (POISSON)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chair: Erik Huizer (SEC)
Tuesday meeting:
Minates by Erik Huizer (SEC)
Two issues were discussed at the Tuesday POISSON meeting:
1- IETF distribution list moderation
2- RFC series of publications
ad 1)
Fred Baker proposed a charter for the IETF list to clearly indicate what
the purp[ose of the list is for. The proposal also allows for the IETF
chair to block threads and/or individuals from the IETF list if their
submissions are deemed to be outside of the scope of the charter.
There was consensus in the WG that a charter is needed, and that it needs
to contain some wording as to what happens when the charter is violated.
There was no consensus yet on how strict or lightweight the "penatly"
structure should be, and as to which IETF officers should be responsible
for enforcement.
It was noted that blocking people to send to the IETF list can be
circumvented by those people. It was also suggested that blocking of
threads might be more productive than blocking individual submissions.
The discussion will be continued on the POISSON mailinglist.
ad 2)
The question is whther there needs to be a separate series from the RFC
series for non-IETF related publications. Currently anyone can publish
almost anything as informational RFC. This is sometimes used as an end-run
around the IETF processes. Non-IETf people depend on the reliability of the
RFC series, and do not see the difference between STD RFC's, FYI RFC's, BCP
RFC's, IETF Informational RFC's and the rest.
There was no clear consensus that any change from the current situation is
needed. Many people in the Wg valued the fact that documents unvetted by
IETF can be published as RFC's. Others maintained that something needs to
be done to minimise the confusion.
Since there is no consensus, the issue will not be taken up by POISSON.
POISSON Meeting
Thursday 12/10/98
Minutes by Zita Wenzel (ISI)
1. Opening
Mike Roberts, Interim CEO of ICANN, Esther Dyson, Interim Chairman of
the Board of ICANN, and Hans Kraijenbrink, member of the Board of ICANN
are here.
2. ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers)
Mike Roberts: We want to do the right thing for the Internet even
though there are lawyerly aspects now present. We are unchartered and
want to learn from our mistakes.
The Supporting Organizations for each of the three functional areas
(names, addresses, and protocols) need to be addressed. They are to be
composed of open organizations, they should refer policies to the Board,
and they should show evidence of fair and equal treatment as stated in
the bylaws. To avoid paralysis, Board power is reserved.
One may interact in a variety of ways, e.g., by the committees. All
internauts will be heard.
There are rights to reconsideration and for aggrieved parties to be
heard as stated in the bylaws. The US government will not pass laws on
this; it is up to the community or the US government will take it back.
3. Q & A
Perry Metzer: The original IANA was a protocol number function.
Scott Bradner: We don't want to go begging for bits in our own
protocols.
Bob Hinden: Addresses are essential for protocols where we don't go to
the registry. We would want a convenient technical place to go.
Mike Roberts: The Board won't move without input from the community.
We need provisions for what you describe.
Scott Bradner: For example, not all addresses go to the registries, some
are maintained for experimental purposes like multicasting. The IANA
handles these addresses directly.
Daniel Karrenberg: The ASO (Address Supporting Organization)
specifically excludes those addresses.
Brian Carpenter: In most of Europe +112 works to call in an emergency.
We don't want a six-month delay in address assignments due to politics.
Geoff Huston: Two functions - technical assignment and address
distribution - are for the public good. Countries have been changing
their distribution publicly. We must prioritize the public policy
outcome desired.
Mike Roberts: The first problem is with the gTLDs.
Geoff Huston: No, the first problem is with IPv6.
Mike Roberts: The ASO is coming up with policies for IPv6 allocation.
Esther Dyson: There are different conflicting views; we are looking for
consensus.
Bernhard Stockman: Avoid delays.
Erik Huizer: The ISI team was perfect. The liaison with the RFC editor
was seamless. We now need to codify and write these relationships and
functions. The IAB and IESG have started a proposal with bylaws for the
PSO (Protocol Supporting Organization).
4. Draft Bylaws
Protocol Supporting Organization for The Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers
A Draft Proposal
Scott Bradner
[email protected]
Ground Rules
discuss proposed PSO details
discuss IETF involvement in PSO
ICANN SOs
serve as advisory bodies to the ICANN Board
nominate directors for the ICANN Board
develop policy in their areas to present to the ICANN Board
evaluate other policy proposals
ICANN & IANA
traditional IANA functions
IP addresses
TLD domain names
configure root name servers
protocol numbers
ICANN marching orders
IP address assignment policy
TLD policy & assignment
coordination of assignment of protocol #s
root servers
ICANN & IANA
IETF IANA function not part of ICANN agreement with US government
i.e. protocol numbers and values assignment
policy for IP address assignment & DNS not part of IETF-related IANA
IETF (ISOC) will contract with ICANN for IETF IANA functions
for continuity
IAB responsibility to develop contract
US government says "coordination of protocol assignment" not just
assignment. We could contract elsewhere. We will have contractual
relationships.
IETF as PSO
Jon's feeling
IETF is not the only group producing Internet-related standards
but IETF should be the major voice at this time
isolation from ICANN board
ICANN can & does make requirements on the SOs
potential threat to IETF independence from a future board
ICANN puts requirements on SOs (openness, etc.). Putting the PSO in
place between IETF and ICANN is a safety mechanism.
ICANN Tasks
ICANN bylaws give functions
numbers related statement
Coordination of the assignment of other Internet technical parameters as
needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet
from US government White Paper
ICANN PSO Description
"The Protocol Supporting Organization shall be composed of
representatives from Internet protocol organizations and others with
legitimate interests in these issues, as determined by the Protocol
Supporting Organization consistent with Section 2 of this Article and
approved by the Board. The Protocol Supporting Organization shall create
a Protocol Council to make recommendations regarding the operation,
assignment and management of protocol parameters, such as port numbers,
enterprise numbers, other technical parameters and related subjects."
PSO Highlights
very lightweight
but real (corporation, association ??)
may be based outside the US
pso functions
providing funding for ICANN (possibly nominal)
appointing three ICANN Board Members
creating a Protocol Council to advise ICANN
This is a shim organization, yes, but it is real.
PSO Overview
membership organization
IETF a member
board of trustees
to meet legal requirements
no pay or reimbursement to board members
open board meetings at IETF meetings
Purposes of the Organization
To select nominees for the board of ICANN
To form a Protocol Council to advise ICANN on matters referred to it by
ICANN.
To provide financial support for ICANN as requested by ICANN.
Limitations on the PSO
not develop policies to be recommended to ICANN.
not interfere with contracts between ICANN and individual technical
standards or technical specifications
development organizations, or any other contracts not with the
Corporation itself.
not develop technical standards, specifications or protocols.
not operate any Internet infrastructure facility such as an IP address
or domain name registry.
The PSO doesn't see policy but contracts specific assignments.
PSO Membership Classes
Class 1 - technical standards and technical specification development
organizations which meet specific criteria
Class 2 - other standards bodies
Class 3 - other organizations
Class 4 - interested individuals
Class 1 Criteria
Open, international, voluntary technical standard and technical
specification development organizations which:
Develop standards and/or specifications for use over IP networks.
Can demonstrate active membership in the IP-related standards and/or
specification development process of more than 1000 individuals, if
individual memberships are used by the organization, or 100 companies,
if corporate memberships are used by the organization.
Class 1 Criteria, contd.
Makes its resulting standards and/or specifications freely available via
the Internet.
Contract all or essentially all of the assignment and management of
protocol parameters, such as port numbers, enterprise numbers, and other
technical parameters and related subjects for all standards to ICANN.
W3C doesn't make its standards available for free.
Class 1 Criteria, contd.
International voluntary standards bodies are defined as private sector
international organizations that plan, develop, establish, or coordinate
voluntary standards.
An organization shall be considered open and international if its
standards or specifications development process is open to any person of
any nationality on equitable terms. It shall be considered voluntary if
it makes no claim to compel use of its standards and specifications.
Membership Class Option
may not need Class 3 & Class 4 if ICANN open membership can be satisfied
by organizations and individuals joining Class 1 and Class 2 members as
members of those organizations.
The ASOs are looking at this.
Membership Fees
All members will pay fees as allocated by the board to cover the costs
of the PSO
expected to be quite small
fees to be determined by the board
keep in mind ability to pay
Meetings
normally only 1 annual meeting
open meeting
held at an IETF meeting
proper notice, agenda, etc
Public Information
all PSO information is published on public web page
except personnel info (if any)
including any payments to board and protocol council members
PSO Board
3 - 12 members
elected by class 1 members
3 each if less then 5 class 1 members
2 each if 5 or 6 class 1 members
1 each if > 6 class 1 members
officers as required by law
Board Duties
set & direct the collection of fees
deal with relationship with ICANN
modify bylaws as required
pay ICANN fees (if any)
participate in selection of ICANN board members
PSO ICANN Board Members
each class 1 member nominates one or more persons for each opening in
PSO ICANN board members
nominees posted on PSO web page for 30 days
PSO board selects an individual from list of nominees for each opening
note ICANN requirement for geographical distribution
Protocol Council
provides advice to ICANN board
18 members, 3 year terms
each class 1 member nominates candidates for open positions
ensure at least 50 % more candidates than positions (different than in
ID)
petition candidates require 10% of membership
membership vote to select candidates
Other Standards Groups
need to work with other IP-centric standards groups - e.g., W3C
need to work with other standards groups e.g. ITU-T, ETSI
We must demonstrate widespread support for ICANN.
ICANN Request Points
membership description
description of policy development process
open, transparent, fair and non-discriminatory processes
policies to ensure international and diverse participation
policies for disclosure of conflicts of interest
methods for funding the SO and providing funding for ICANN
Discussion
Stillson: Will we be begging for numbers?
Scott Bradner: The contract will specify exact assignment.
Perry Metzer: Is this just an electoral college for ICANN?
Scott Bradner: It also answers protocol questions.
Roberto Gaetano: I don't like the classes of members. We need to
reserve seats for other classes. I have no problem with IETF having
control, but not for the totality of seats.
Scott Bradner: The bylaws were changed to include others so that there
is balance and other standards bodies are included.
John Gilmore: Three points: 1) The PSO is not proposing policies. What
about routing and address assignment?
Scott Bradner: Addresses are not under our jurisdiction; they are under
RFC 2050 and the ASO. When we're in the minority is this a situation we
would be comfortable with? This is a question asked at the ICANN open
meeting in Cambridge by Tamar Frankel. This is protection for that.
John Gilmore: 2) Why should class 1 organizations contract with ICANN
for clerical function?
Scott Bradner: It is not simply a clerical function. There is an
exclusionary clause to keep only standards groups.
John Gilmore: 3) One organization to do this is a bad idea. All
members can vote but all candidates are from the IETF. It should be 1%
like ISOC, not 10%. One man, one vote.
Keith Moore: Class 1 members justification is artificial and not
right. IETF can't back out of this.
Daniel Karrenberg: This is over-engineering the solution. Because
discussion at three levels can stall the process (SO, other SOs and the
Board). Delete 3 and 4 class members. There will be policy decisions
and we may regret it if it is not considered.
Jeff Schiller: I am on the IESG and I am not bought in.
Accountability. I am afraid the DNSO (people and reptiles) loud voices
will decrease the thoughtful attention to protocols. Microsoft would
fit the organization for the PSO. I don't think protocol assignment
needs to go to ICANN; it should stay within the IETF. I didn't have
time to react to this proposal. I think the IETF should be the PSO.
Scott Bradner: A draft has been out for a long time. This would be a
contract with specific assignments.
Kent Crispin: This is a Pollyanna view of the world. The IETF can no
longer avoid dealing with reptiles. We can't avoid dealing with
governance issues.
John Lynn: I am concerned about serializing dependencies.
Jack Holdenworth: I see this as an immense opportunity. We need the
ISO and ITU-T. The ISO is filing documents as Internet Drafts.
Scott Bradner: No fee.
Chris Newman: Here is a suggestion: contract non-controversial
registries to ISI and controversial ones to ICANN.
Erik Huizer: Are the SOs separate organizations or part of ICANN?
Mike Roberts: There are no requirements for absolute symmetry among the
SOs. Different versions are out there. The general idea is that they
are separate.
Straw poll: 24 yes, create PSO; 19 no, IETF is the PSO; many undecided
with not enough information.
Conclusion was no consensus. People want to see the contracts to
decide.
[email protected] and use the request convention to subscribe.
5. Draft Appointments
Procedures for IETF appointments to the Protocol Supporting Organization
Prepared by Brian Carpenter; presented by Scott Bradner
Appointments Required
nominate individuals for 3 positions on the PSO Board
nominate three members of the ICANN Board
nominate individuals for eighteen positions on the ICANN Protocol
Council
PSO Board Members
proposal for selecting PSO Board members
IAB Chair
IETF Chair
another current member of IESG or IAB
selected by consensus of IAB & IESG
note above are already appointed by IETF nomcom process
avoid new tasks for nomcom
lightweight duty
PSO Board Members, contd.
different selection if > 4 Class 1 members
IAB Chair & IETF Chair if 5 or 6 Class 1 members
IAB Chair if > 6 Class 1 members
ICANN Board Members
proposal to select nominees for ICANN PSO Board positions
each year after 1st year
nomcom selects one nominee
3 year term
first year
nomcom selects three nominees
- - 1,2 & 3 year terms
ICANN Board Members, contd.
subject to recall procedures in RFC 2282
subject to selection by PSO
subject to approval by ICANN board
subject to ICANN geographic restrictions
ICANN Geographic Restrictions
"no more than one-half (1/2) of the total number of Directors, in the
aggregate, elected after nomination by the Supporting Organizations
shall be citizens of countries located in any one Geographic Region. As
used herein, each of the following shall be a "Geographic Region":
Europe; Asia/Australia/Pacific; Latin America/Caribbean Islands; Africa;
North America."
Protocol Council
proposal to select nominees for the PSO Protocol Council
the nominees will be selected from the active members of the IESG and
IAB by consensus of the IAB and IESG
note above are already appointed by IETF nomcom process
avoid new tasks for nomcom
note - change from ID
Bernard Stockman: This is against the IETF spirit. Use nom-com.
Tony Hain: There is an issue with requiring the SOs to subscribe to the
geographical distribution requirement.
Perry Metzer: Complexity kills. Step back and get more input. This
won't work.
Fred Baker: This is to ICANN: Add South America to your definition of
geographical areas.
Leslie David: Picking from the IAB and IESG is not good (they are
overworked already and it is a different task). Use nom-com.
Eric Brunner: What was the institutional experience we gained from the
IAHC process?
Erik Huizer: A lot of coordination is needed.
Mark Day: This hard-wires the chairs of IAB and IESG plus geographical
distribution.
Esther Dyson: That is an untenable position.
John Klensin: Things are the way they are. Stop worrying about what if
things were different. While we wait, others will fill the gap.
Jeff Schiller: Use nom-com.
6. New Charter
Erik Huizer: Is a new charter needed for POISSON. Current charter is
done. One issue for new charter is: the copyright RFC text that has
been submitted to the list for consensus. 2nd issue: List charters
3rd issue: What is the new relationship between IETF and ICANN? What
is the nature of the PSO? Will there be an IANA contract?
Graham Travers: How will the decision be taken?
Erik Huizer: After consensus on the list is reached, it will be
presented at the next open plenary.
