1 files changed, 227 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc2031.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc2031.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2e9204c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc2031.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,227 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                         E. Huizer
+Request for Comments: 2031                  SURFnet ExpertiseCentrum bv
+Category: Informational                                    October 1996
+
+
+                         IETF-ISOC relationship
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  This memo
+   does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of
+   this memo is unlimited.
+
+Abstract
+
+   This memo summarises the issues on IETF - ISOC relationships as the
+   have been discussed by the Poised Working Group. The purpose of the
+   document is to gauge consensus on these issues. And to allow further
+   discussions where necessary.
+
+Introduction
+
+   The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is the body that is
+   responsible for the development and maintenance of the Internet
+   Standards. Traditionally the IETF is a volunteer organization. The
+   driving force is dedicated high quality engineers from all over the
+   world. In a structure of working groups these engineers exchange
+   ideas and experience, and through discussion (both by e-mail and face
+   to face) they strive to get rough consensus. The engineers then work
+   on building running code to put the consensus to the test and evolve
+   it into an Internet Standard.
+
+   The growth of the Internet has also led to a growth of the IETF. More
+   and more people, organizations and companies rely on Internet
+   Standards. The growth of responsibility as well as amount of
+   participants has forced the IETF to more and more structure its
+   processes. Non technical issues, such as legal issues, liaison issues
+   etc., have become an undesirable but a seemingly unavoidable part of
+   the IETF organization. To address these issues the IETF established
+   the Poised95 working group. The working group is now trying to
+   structure and document the IETF processes in such a way as to keep
+   the maximum flexibility and freedom for the engineers in the IETF to
+   work in the way the IETF has always been most successful, and to
+   honour the IETF credo: "Rough consensus and running code".
+
+   One of the more obvious recommendations that came out of the Poised
+   WG was to move all non technical issues that can be moved safely, to
+   another related organization. The Poised WG finds that the Internet
+
+
+
+Huizer                       Informational                      [Page 1]
+
+RFC 2031                 IETF-ISOC Relationship             October 1996
+
+
+   Society (ISOC) is the obvious choice for this task. A straw poll at
+   the open plenary session of the IETF in december 1995 in Dallas
+   clearly confirmed this notion.
+
+   However, since this is an issue that is crucial to the functioning of
+   the IETF as a whole it is necessary to get a broad (rather than a
+   rough) consensus on this issue. At the same time it is necessary to
+   clearly indicate the extend of the relationship between the IETF and
+   ISOC. So both the IETF participants and the ISOC board of trustees
+   get a clear picture on the division of responsibilities.
+
+   The details of the Poised WG recommendations on the IETF - ISOC
+   relationships can be found in the appropriate places in a series of
+   Poised documents in progress: - The IETF Standards Process - The IETF
+   organizational structure - The IETF charter - The Nomcom procedures -
+   The Appeals procedures
+
+   The current document is meant to summarize the Poised WG
+   recommendations in order to gauge the consensus. This document does
+   not have, and is not intended to get, a formal status. The current
+   and upcoming working documents of the Poised WG will become the
+   formal documents. Readers who are interested in the nitty gritty
+   details are referred to these working documents of the Poised WG.
+
+Main boundary condition
+
+   The IETF remains responsible for the development and quality of the
+   Internet Standards. The ISOC will aid the IETF by facilitating legal
+   and organizational issues as described below. Apart from the roles
+   described below, the IETF and ISOC acknowledge that the ISOC has no
+   influence whatsoever on the Internet Standards process, the Internet
+   Standards or their technical content.
+
+   All subgroups in the IETF and ISOC that have an official role in the
+   standards process should be either:
+   - open to anyone (like Working Groups); or
+   - have a well documented restricted membership in which the
+     voting members are elected or nominated through an open process.
+
+   The latter means that within the IETF the IAB and the IESG need to be
+   formed through a nomination process that is acceptable to the IETF
+   community and that gives all IETF participants an equal chance to be
+   candidate for a position in either of these bodies. For the ISOC this
+   means that the Board of Trustees should be elected by the ISOC
+   individual membership, where all individual members have an equal
+   vote and all individual members have an equal opportunity to stand as
+   a candidate for a position on the Board of Trustees.
+
+
+
+
+Huizer                       Informational                      [Page 2]
+
+RFC 2031                 IETF-ISOC Relationship             October 1996
+
+
+   ISOC will, like the IETF use public discussion and consensus building
+   processes when it wants to develop new policies or regulations that
+   may influence the role of ISOC in the Internet or the Internet
+   Technical work. ISOC will always put work related to Internet
+   standards, Internet technical issues or Internet operations up for
+   discussion in the IETF through the IETF Internet-drafts publication
+   process.
+
+The legal umbrella
+
+   To avoid the fact that the IETF has to construct its own legal
+   structure to protect the standards and the standards process, ISOC
+   should provide a legal umbrella. The legal umbrella will at least
+   cover:
+   - legal insurance for all IETF officers (IAB, IESG, Nomcom and WG
+      chairs);
+   - legal protection of the RFC series of documents; In such a way
+     that these documents can be freely (i.e. no restrictions
+     financially or otherwise) distributed, copied etc. but cannot
+     be altered or misused. And that the right to change the document
+     lies with the IETF.
+   - legal protection in case of Intellectual property rights disputes
+     over Internet Standards or parts thereof.
+
+The standards process role
+
+   ISOC will assist the standards process by
+     - appointing the nomcom chair
+     - approving IAB candidates
+     - reviewing and approving the documents that describe the standards
+       process (i.e. the formal Poised documents).
+     - acting as the last resort in the appeals process
+
+Security considerations
+
+   By involving ISOC into specific parts of the Standards process, the
+   IETF has no longer absolute control. It can be argued that this is a
+   breach of security. It is therefore necessary to make sure that the
+   ISOC involvement is restricted to well defined and understood parts,
+   at well defined and understood boundary conditions. The Poised WG
+   attempts to define these, and they are summarised in this document.
+
+   There are three alternatives:
+
+   - Do nothing and ignore the increasing responsibility and growth; the
+     risk here is that the IETF either becomes insignificant, or will be
+     suffocated by US law suits.
+
+
+
+
+Huizer                       Informational                      [Page 3]
+
+RFC 2031                 IETF-ISOC Relationship             October 1996
+
+
+   - The IETF does everything itself; this keeps the IETf in control,
+     but it would distract enormously from the technical work the IETF
+     is trying to get done.
+
+   - The IETF finds another organization than ISOC to take on the role
+     described above. But why would another organization be better than
+     ISOC?
+
+   All in all a certain risk seems unavoidable, and a relationship with
+   ISOC, under the restrictions and boundary conditions as have been
+   described above, seems more like an opportunity for the IETF than
+   like a risk.
+
+Acknowledgement and disclaimer
+
+   The author is chair of the Poised 95 WG. The author has tried to
+   summarise e-mail and face to face discussions in the WG. All the good
+   ideas in this paper are the result of the WG, all the mistakes and
+   errors are probably due to the author or his lack of command of the
+   American language as well as the American legal system.
+
+   The author is a member of the Internet Society.
+
+Author's Address
+
+   Erik Huizer
+   SURFnet ExpertiseCentrum bv
+   P.O. Box 19115
+   3501 DC  Utrecht
+   The Netherlands
+   Tel: +31 302 305 305
+   Fax: +31 302 305 329
+   E-mail: Erik.Huizer@sec.nl
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Huizer                       Informational                      [Page 4]
+