Quoting from section 3:
The IASA will initially consist of a single full-time ISOC employee, the IETF Administrative Director (IAD), who will be an officer entitled to act on behalf of the IASA at the direction of the IAOC. 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.
I think that is the right division of labour (the IASA *does* the work, the IAOC *oversees* the work, and the IAOC is *not* part of IASA).
So any power that implies *doing*, including chartering committes that help define or refine the support for the IETF, should be given to the IAD, not to the IAOC. Any committee that does *oversight* (for instance an audit committee) should be chartered by the IAOC.
Your mileage may vary.
Harald
--On 24. november 2004 16:17 -0800 Bernard Aboba <aboba@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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 ..."
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?
Yes, this makes sense to me.
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf