Bernard - Good comments. I went back and re-read section 3, and I agree that it is somewhat unclear. (That's sometimes good, of course, but probably not in this case). >From what I read, the idea is that the IAOC sets policy: it has a large say in how finances are done, reporting to the IAOC is done in a way that they can operate the IASA as a "seperate business unit", etc... That says to me "strong committee" which is a bit more than oversight. The IAD is a member of the IAOC. (IMHOW, this person should have a vote, but ymmv ... I've been on boards where I'm a voting executive and on boards where I was non-voting, and it was always frustrating to be have only a half-voice at the table. :). It seems to me that in most of section 3 where it says the "IAD shall," you could probably simply change that to the "IAOC shall." For example: > "The IAD may constitute special-purpose, chartered committees to bring in > expertise (on topics such as finance, IETF process, or tools), to engage This simply becomes "The IAOC may constitute ..." A lot of the stuff in the "IAD responsibilities" and "IAD committees" becomes "IAOC ...". And, a separate section merely states that the IAOC shall hire an IAD who will serve as the chief executive and be a voting/non-voting member of the committee and shall serve as the executive director/staff for the committee. Does that make sense or are people envisioning the "Office of the IAD" having some more distinct powers and responsibilities rather than simply reporting to the board? (In a corporation, it is rare for the ceo to be defined in the chartering document, except for a mention that they are a voting/non-member of the board and, as an officer, have certain fiduciary and other legal roles (e.g., can sign a check)). Things like "shall do the budget" aren't usually stated at the level of the chartering document as a job duty, they are simply a responsibility of the entity as a whole as represented by their board of directors. Regards, Carl > In reading section 3, I believe that there are some issues with respect > to separation between the IASA and IAD responsibilities. > > My overall comment on Section 3 is that co-mingles sections relating to > the responsibilities of the IAD and the IAOC. Since the IAOC > constitutes the management, while the IAD is an (ISOC) employee, these > responsibilities need to be separated, both editorially and logically. > > I would prefer if Section 3 focussed solely on the IASA, and another > section was devoted to the IAD and the associated support functions. > > However, beyond the editorial separation, I think the logical > separation of responsibilities is not well articulated in Section 3. > > The IAOC is the body that reviews the operation of the IASA > as well as the IAD. In order to ensure that the IAOC can carry out that > mandate it needs to maintain the oversight function independent of the > IAD. > > Section 3.2 seems confused on this point: > > "The IAD may constitute special-purpose, chartered committees to bring in > expertise (on topics such as finance, IETF process, or tools), to engage > volunteers in IASA activities, or to gain additional perspectives. These > committees may consist of subsets of the IAOC, IAB or IESG, selected IETF > participants, or external experts, depending on the need. These committees > are advisory in nature -- the IAD is responsible for the outcome, > including presenting and supporting any decisions or work items to the > IAOC and the IETF community, as appropriate." > > While it is appropriate for the IAD to attend finance committee meetings, > the finance committee function is inherently a responsibility of the IAOC, > given its role in review of financial reports as described in Section 3.3. > Therefore it seems like the finance committee function is part of the > IAOC, not the IAD, in order to ensure proper oversight. > > Similarly, if the desire is to keep the IETF process separate from the IASA, > then the IAD should not be chartering committees relating to the IETF > process. > > Given this, I'd suggest that somewhere in Section 3, it should be stated > that the IAOC can form subcommittees in order to help it carry its work, > such as the finance committee. > > I'd also suggest that the timeline described in Section 6, > describes a "throw it over the wall" budgeting process that is unlikely to > prove workable in practice. An arrangement that brings together input > from the IAOC, the IAD and the ISOC from the start is likely to work > better. > > "The IAD is likely to draw on financial, legal and administrative support > furnished by ISOC support staff or consultants. Allocation of costs for > ISOC support staff and consultants will be based on an actual expenses or > on some other allocation model determined by consultation between the IAOC > and ISOC." > > In practice it is likely that the IASA will incur considerable ISOC > overhead, and therefore that the overhead allocation (including the > overhead associated with fund raising) will turn out to be a > large budget item. I therefore think it is quite important that the level > of ISOC administrative support as well as the associated overhead be a > part of the early budgeting process, and that will require early ISOC > input. > > Another example where early cooperation will be required is in the > development of a service level proposal for the fiscal year, which will > impact the budget. At the plenary, Bob Kahn raised the issue of how the > IETF community determines the required services, and how service level > changes are adjusted to take this into account. > > As described in Section 3.3, the IAOC is responsible for the determination > of whether the IASA functions are meeting the IETF community's needs. I'd > assume that service levels are part of that function and if so, then the > IAOC plays a critical role in the budget process, which is not described > in Section 6. > > I'd suggest that more important than listing specific milestones for the > budget process (which I hope the IAOC, ISOC and IAD could adjust as > required) is to articulate how the IAOC, ISOC and IASA are expected to > work together to prepare the budget. For example, I'd assume that the > IAOC will work with the IESG and IAB as well as the IETF community to > determine the appropriate services, and that recommendations will be > provided as input to the IAD. Also, the ISOC will provide early input on > available resources and overhead charges, so as to ensure that this is > taken into account within the budget. > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf