--On Monday, 27 December, 2004 03:00 +0100 "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin"
<jefsey@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> At last ... This is why the ISOC scheme cannot work. One
> cannot serve two masters. This rises the question of who has
> the lead over the Internet R&D (a part from the users).
No, Jefsey, as is often the case, I can't fathom how your
conclusions relate to what has been said. First, the comment
has nothing to do with "the ISOC scheme", it is strictly a
matter of IETF-IASA leadership relationships and would exist no
matter what relationship the IASA has to ISOC. Second, this
has very little, if anything, to do with "Internet R&D"
leadership, at least as I understand those terms: insofar as
anyone in the IETF-linked structures have any leadership role
there, it is clearly the IAB and not either the standards
functions of the IETF or any administrative body. And, again,
this is independent of any links to ISOC or the absence of them.
And...
> 1. may be it is the time to remember the IRTF and its Chair:
> this would transform a praxis into a triumvirate.
Except that there is no ambiguity of relationships with the IRTF
leadership, and it was that ambiguity which Margaret and I were
addressing. The IRTF Chair is appointed by the IAB and
essentially serves at the IAB's pleasure.
> 2. rather then creating a dominance, why not to organize a
> conflict arbitration, for example by your ICANN BoD position.
> If there is a conflict, you are the first embarrassed.
First, because ICANN has absolutely nothing to do with this and
the only value of dragging them into it would be to add
considerable confusion about roles and relationships. To put
it mildly, I don't favor such confusion. You may, of course,
disagree. Second, my "ICANN BoD position" is a liaison one
only. I'm appointed by the IAB, serve at their pleasure, and
feel obligated to follow any instructions I get from them when I
am acting in that capacity. So injecting me, or future
occupants of that role, into this situation would essentially
just give the IAB the controlling vote. It would not provide a
basis for impartial arbitration, but would, in your language,
just be a different way to "create a dominance".
john
> At 16:22 26/12/2004, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>> --On Sunday, 26 December, 2004 08:35 -0500 Margaret Wasserman
>> <margaret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> >>> >> I'd remove everything after the comma. There is no
>> >>> >> clear concept of what duties and responsibilities
>> >>> >> would normally be associated with such a position,
>> >>> >> and you have specific responsibilities and limits
>> >>> >> listed later.
>> >>>
>> >> No change made. It had quite some discussion during rev 01.
>> >> And we then seemed to have agreed (to me at least) on
>> >> taking the text from the IAB doc (RFC2850, sect 3.1) and
>> >> not fiddle with the words (as had been done earlier).
>> >> So after that earlier discussion on the text, I do not see
>> >> this as just an editorial change.
>> >
>> > I personally still object, as I don't (personally) have a
>> > clear concept of what duties and responsibilities would
>> > normally be associated with the role of IAOC Chair. Would
>> > you consider this person to be a peer with the IETF Chair
>> > and the IAB Chair, for instance?
>>
>> Note, first, that we have never clarified whether the IETF
>> Chair and the IAB Chair are peers. As a former IAB Chair, I
>> have an opinion on that subject, but it might differ from the
>> opinions (and certainly differs from some occasional
>> practices) of prior IETF Chairs.
>>
>> Speaking pragmatically and based on some experience with
>> general organizational behavior as well as that of the
>> IETF... Not having this issue absolutely clear will, sooner
>> or later, lead to a power struggle of some flavor unless the
>> IAOC Chair rotates at a fairly high rate, i.e., the position
>> is clearly one of "chair of current meeting or teleconf", not
>> "Chair of the IAOC".
>>
>> And, while Carl will probably consider that potential power
>> struggle as an edge case too, I think the odds of it occurring
>> and consuming a lot of energy unnecessarily are high enough
>> that it would be good to get this clarified and to be sure
>> that the community is signed up on the clarification.
>>
>> john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf