Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01 and is now closed.
Thanks for this. I have one minor non-comment: §3, last paragraph: "... the IETF Trust is a low-activity entity where changes are minimal and gradual, and there are no pressing issues." Sure, taunt the universe. :-)
I really appreciate this work. As Leslie said, one of these days, we're not going to be able to ask her to archive-dive about decisions that happened a decade in the past, and having this written down if we need it is valuable.
Thank you for deciding to publish this rationale document; it's a good piece of text to have in an easy to find location. My only comments are editorial nitpicking. Section 4 Given all this, one approach was to have trustees appointed by the NomCom, IESG, and ISOC Board of Trustees, or even the new IETF Administration LLC legal entity (but the Internet Society is perhaps more focused on the broad use of the IETF Trust assets and not merely administrative aspects). nit: it's a bit unclear to me what the "but" in the parenthetical is contrasting to. Are we considering (ISOC BoT vs. IETF LLC) as picking one of the trustees (with the NomCom and IESG picking the rest)? Section 5 And once the updated procedures were in place, the IETF Trust has its management nominated in the usual manner, and the exceptional IESG process is no longer needed. nit: is there a past/present mismatch between "were" and "has"/"is"?
Abstract: > At the time RFC NNNN was published, IETF administrative structure > changes ("IASA 2.0") had an impact on the IETF Trust because members > of the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) IAOC Nit: "(IAOC) IAOC" seems redundant.
I really don't understand why this is published in a separate doc instead of just putting it in the appendix of draft-ietf-iasa2-trust-update