Trustee rationale: IETF Administrative Support Activity 2.0: Update to the Process for Selection of Trustees for the IETF Trust
Why the IETF changed how it selects trustees for the IETF Trust.
Arkko, J., "IETF Administrative Support Activity 2.0: Update to the Process for Selection of Trustees for the IETF Trust", RFC 8715, DOI 10.17487/RFC8715, February 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8715>.
@misc{rfc8715,
series = {Request for Comments},
number = 8715,
howpublished = {RFC 8715},
publisher = {RFC Editor},
doi = {10.17487/RFC8715},
url = {https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8715},
author = {J. Arkko},
title = {{IETF Administrative Support Activity 2.0: Update to the Process for Selection of Trustees for the IETF Trust}},
pagetotal = 6,
year = 2020,
month = feb,
} RFC text
Contents
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Arkko
Request for Comments: 8715 Ericsson
Category: Informational February 2020
ISSN: 2070-1721
IETF Administrative Support Activity 2.0: Update to the Process for
Selection of Trustees for the IETF Trust
Abstract
This document captures the rationale for the changes introduced in
RFC 8714, "Update to the Process for Selection of Trustees for the
IETF Trust".
At the time RFC 8714 was published, the changes to the IETF
Administrative Support Activity, Version 2.0 (IASA 2.0) had an impact
on the IETF Trust because members of the IETF Administrative
Oversight Committee (IAOC), which was being phased out, had served as
Trustees of the IETF Trust. This document provides background on the
past IETF Trust arrangements, explains the effect of the rules in the
founding documents during the transition to the new arrangement, and
provides a rationale for the update.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are candidates for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8715.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Background
3. General Approach
4. Changing the Way Trustees Are Selected
5. Transition
6. Security Considerations
7. IANA Considerations
8. References
8.1. Normative References
8.2. Informative References
Acknowledgements
Author's Address
1. Introduction
This document captures the rationale for the changes introduced in
[RFC8714].
At the time [RFC8714] was published, the changes to the IETF
Administrative Support Activity, Version 2.0 (IASA 2.0) had an impact
on the IETF Trust [RFC4071] [RFC4371] [RFC8711]. This is because
members of the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC), which
was being phased out, had served as Trustees of the IETF Trust. A
minimal change regarding the selection of the Trustees is implemented
by [RFC8714].
This companion memo provides some background on the details of the
past IETF Trust arrangements, explains the effect of the rules in the
founding documents during the transition to the new arrangement, and
provides a rationale for the update.
2. Background
The purpose of the IETF Trust is to acquire, hold, maintain, and
license certain existing and future intellectual property and other
property used in connection with the administration of the IETF
[RFC8714]. The intellectual property is, for instance, rights that
the IETF contributors grant for text in RFCs and Internet-Drafts.
The IETF Trust also manages trademarks such as "IETF" and domain
names such as "ietf.org". The IETF Trust is also serving the broader
Internet community by holding domains and trademarks associated with
the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) [RFC7979].
The IETF Trust is a legal entity, registered in the Commonwealth of
Virginia [Trust-FD].
Previously, the members of the IAOC also served as ex officio
Trustees of the IETF Trust. The founding documents specify persons
eligible to become Trustees as having to be then-current members of
the IAOC [Trust-FD]. The documents also specify that if for any
reason there are fewer than three individuals serving as Trustees,
then the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), or the IESG's
successor as the leadership of the IETF, shall appoint one or more
individuals to serve in a temporary capacity as Trustee(s) until
eligible persons can be found.
In the previous system, there were eight voting members of the IAOC.
Two were named by the IETF Nominating Committee (NomCom), one by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), one by the Internet
Architecture Board (IAB), and one by the Internet Society (ISOC)
Board of Trustees. There were three ex officio members via their
roles as IETF Chair, ISOC CEO, and IAB Chair. In addition, the IETF
Administrative Director (IAD) was a non-voting IAOC member who also
served as one of the Trustees.
3. General Approach
There were two basic approaches to resolving the issue with the
Trustees once the IAOC ceased to exist. One approach would be to
merge all IETF Trust functions in the new IASA structure and under
the new legal entity. However, this memo advocates a second approach
where the IETF Trust is kept independent.
The rationale for advocating the second approach is, in part, to
minimize changes to the IETF Trust while the IETF's administrative
structure is undergoing major change. In addition, the IETF Trust
and other administrative IETF processes are quite different. While
very important, the IETF Trust is a low-activity entity where changes
are minimal and gradual, and there are no pressing issues.
4. Changing the Way Trustees Are Selected
When the Trustees were serving on both the IETF Trust and the IAOC,
many of the requirements for naming a particular group of people were
driven by the IAOC's requirements. For the IETF Trust in the new
model, some of those arrangements were rethought, both in terms of
the number and source of the Trustees, as well as the desired
qualifications and length of terms.
Several options were possible, of course. A newly designed selection
process could have been devised, but in this document we argue for
limited change based largely on the fact that a) the IETF Trust
arrangements worked generally well, b) the expected time commitment
is expected to be modest, and c) the assets need very careful
management.
As a result, a smaller group of Trustees appeared sufficient.
In addition, the terms set for the Trustees selected from the IETF
community could be longer than the two-year period typical of other
IETF bodies.
One could have continued the practice of having the chairs and CEOs
from the IETF, IAB, and Internet Society be Trustees as well, but
this may not be necessary. In general, the tasks of the IETF Trust
are well defined, and while there is a need for coordination, it does
not need to be at the level of chairs or CEOs.
Given all this, one approach was to have Trustees appointed by the
NomCom, the IESG, and the ISOC Board of Trustees. (One might also
have considered the IETF Administration LLC legal entity instead of
the Internet Society for this role, but the Internet Society is
perhaps more suitable for the role given their focus on the broad use
of the IETF Trust assets and not merely administrative aspects.)
If the same principles used for previous appointments continued to be
used, then appointments performed by the NomCom would need to be
confirmed by another entity. This could be, for instance, either the
IESG or the IAB. The IESG had previously been the confirming body
for the IAOC, so it has been retained in that role for the Trustees.
5. Transition
When the new entity for the IETF Administration LLC was set up, the
IAOC was expected to be discontinued soon thereafter. Fortunately,
there was no pressing need to change all the components of the IAOC
and its dependent organizations at the same time. As discussed in
Section 2, the IESG holds the ability to continue to name Trustees.
Once the updated procedures were in place, the IETF Trust had its
management nominated in the usual manner, and the IESG's exception
process was no longer needed.
6. Security Considerations
This memo has no security implications for the Internet.
7. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC4071] Austein, R., Ed. and B. Wijnen, Ed., "Structure of the
IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101,
RFC 4071, DOI 10.17487/RFC4071, April 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4071>.
[RFC4371] Carpenter, B., Ed. and L. Lynch, Ed., "BCP 101 Update for
IPR Trust", BCP 101, RFC 4371, DOI 10.17487/RFC4371,
January 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4371>.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC7979] Lear, E., Ed. and R. Housley, Ed., "Response to the IANA
Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) Request
for Proposals on the IANA Protocol Parameters Registries",
RFC 7979, DOI 10.17487/RFC7979, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7979>.
[RFC8711] Haberman, B., Hall, J., and J. Livingood, "Structure of
the IETF Administrative Support Activity, Version 2.0",
BCP 101, RFC 8711, DOI 10.17487/RFC8711, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8711>.
[RFC8714] Arkko, J. and T. Hardie, "Update to the Process for
Selection of Trustees for the IETF Trust", BCP 101,
RFC 8714, DOI 10.17487/RFC8714, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8714>.
[Trust-FD] IETF Trust, "Founding Documents",
<https://trustee.ietf.org/founding-documents.html>.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank other members of the earlier IASA 2.0
design team: Brian Haberman, Eric Rescorla, Jason Livingood, Joe
Hall, and Leslie Daigle. The author would also like to thank Alissa
Cooper, Ted Hardie, Andrew Sullivan, Brian Carpenter, Lucy Lynch, and
John Levine for interesting discussions in this problem space, and
Adrian Farrel, Tero Kivinen, Russ Housley, Benjamin Kaduk, Adam
Roach, and Meral Shirazipour for careful review.
Author's Address
Jari Arkko
Ericsson
FI-02700 Kauniainen
Finland
Email: jari.arkko@piuha.net
AI ELI5
On this page
§1Introduction
RFC 8715 explains why the IETF changed the way it selects Trustees for the IETF Trust. This companion document provides the reasoning behind the changes introduced in RFC 8714. The IETF Trust is the legal entity that holds and manages intellectual property rights, domain names (including ietf.org), and trademarks associated with the IETF. When the IETF reorganized its administrative structure through IASA 2.0, the Trust's governance needed adjustment because the previous Trustees had been members of the IAOC, which was being discontinued.
The IETF Trust owns important things like copyrights and domain names. When the IETF changed its management structure, someone had to explain why they were changing who picks the people to look after the Trust.
§2The IETF Trust and the IAOC
The IETF Trust is a legal entity registered in Virginia that acquires, holds, maintains, and licenses property used in connection with IETF administration. This includes intellectual property rights that IETF contributors grant for RFCs and Internet-Drafts, as well as trademarks like "IETF" and domain names like "ietf.org". The Trust also manages domains and trademarks associated with IANA.
Historically, the members of the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) also served as ex officio Trustees of the IETF Trust. The IAOC had eight voting members plus three ex officio members (the IETF Chair, ISOC CEO, and IAB Chair). However, when the IETF restructured to IASA 2.0, the IAOC was being phased out, leaving the Trust without a clear appointment mechanism.
The IETF Trust is a special company that owns things the IETF needs, like its website and copyrights. The people who ran the IETF's other business were also in charge of the Trust. But when the IETF changed how it was run, those people were going away, so someone needed a new way to pick Trust leaders.
§3Why Keep the Trust Independent
Rather than merge the IETF Trust into the new IASA 2.0 structure, the RFC advocates for keeping the Trust independent. This decision was based on the recognition that the IETF Trust and the broader IETF administrative processes are fundamentally different. The Trust is a low-activity entity with minimal, gradual changes and no pressing issues, whereas the IETF administrative structure undergoes frequent reorganization and change.
By keeping the Trust separate, the IETF could minimize disruption to the Trust during a major restructuring of the administrative organization. This approach also allows the Trust to have leadership selected for the specific needs of managing intellectual property and assets, rather than having its Trustee composition driven by the requirements of other IETF administrative functions.
The IETF could have made the Trust part of the new management structure, but it decided not to. The Trust runs smoothly and does not change much, so keeping it separate meant it would not get tangled up in the big reorganization.
§4The New Selection Process
Under the new arrangement, Trustees are appointed through three separate channels: the IETF Nominating Committee (NomCom), the IESG, and the Internet Society Board of Trustees. This approach reuses the successful principle of having the NomCom appoint some Trustees with confirmation by the IESG (which had previously confirmed IAOC appointments).
The RFC notes that earlier approaches had considered continuing to use the IETF Chair, IAB Chair, and ISOC CEO as ex officio Trustees, but rejected this on the grounds that the Trust's tasks are well-defined and do not require engagement at the level of organizational chairs or CEOs. Instead, a smaller, more specialized group of Trustees is appropriate. The flexibility to set longer term lengths for Trustees (compared to the typical two-year terms of other IETF bodies) reflects the Trust's stable, long-term stewardship needs.
The new way picks Trustees from three different places: the IETF's regular nomination process, its leadership, and the Internet Society. The RFC explains why this makes sense and why it does not need the top leaders to be in charge of the Trust.
§5Managing the Change
The RFC notes that during the transition when IASA 2.0 was being set up and the IAOC was still being phased out, there was no pressing need to change all components at once. The IESG was given the authority to continue naming Trustees in an exception process during this transition period, ensuring continuity of the Trust's governance. Once the updated procedures were fully in place and regular NomCom appointments began, this temporary exception process would no longer be needed.
The change did not have to happen all at once. While things were still being reorganized, the IESG could pick temporary trustees to keep things running. Once the new system was ready, the normal appointment process took over.