Brian et al.,
would
"
x.x Compensation for IOAC members
The IOAC members shall not receive any compensation (apart from
reimbursement of expenses) for their services as members of the
IOAC."
do the trick then? (Modified from the ISOC by-laws.) I really do believe
that at least the fact that the IOAC members are not payed for their
services should be documented.
Cheers,
Jonne.
On Sun, 2005-01-02 at 12:20, ext Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> John C Klensin wrote:
> >
> > --On Thursday, 30 December, 2004 11:21 -0800 EKR <ekr@xxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Helsinki)"
> >><jonne.soininen@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >>
> >>>I admit that I maybe have too much a view point of someone
> >>>working for a relatively large company. I try to approach
> >>>this from a position where the IAOC itself does not become a
> >>>significant cost for IASA.
> >>>
> >>>However, as these are the people that are responsible for
> >>>setting the budget and supervising the finances of the IASA
> >>>and there is no real owner to control the expenses it would
> >>>be clearer to have the IAOC members being responsible for
> >>>their own expenses.
> >>>...
> >>
> >>Jonne,
> >>
> >>The argument you're making here is for a policy that IAOC
> >>members should be responsible for their own expenses. That's a
> >>perfectly reasonable policy, but the course of action you're
> >>arguing for is to write it into the BCP so that it can't be
> >>changed without extraordinary difficulty. Can you explain why
> >>you think that that's necessary?
> >
> >
> > EKR has now tried to make this point several times, and others
> > don't seem to be hearing him, so let me try and, in the process,
> > provide an additional data point.
> >
> > I think it is key that this is a management decision, not
> > material for the BCP. The right way to deal with this, IMO, is
> > the way we have (apparently) agreed to handle other details,
> > i.e., to have the BCP charge the IAOC with coming up with a
> > policy and making that policy known in the community. Were that
> > policy to be, or become, abusive, then it needs to be fixed by
> > (or with) the IAOC. But let's not lock a specific, perhaps
> > over-specific, policy into the BCP.
> >
> > In case anyone doesn't know, IAB and IESG members, and probably
> > others, have occasionally been reimbursed for travel expenses to
> > meetings where they were representing the IETF and no other
> > source of funds was available. If I recall, travel expenses to
> > IETF meetings have occasionally, although I think very rarely,
> > been reimbursed as well. When it has been done, those expenses
> > have been covered out of IETF Chair discretionary funds provided
> > by ISOC. The reimbursements have not been widely publicized, I
> > think, out of consideration for the privacy of the people
> > involved. The new IASA disclosure rules would, I believe,
> > require at least an accounting of the total amounts of money
> > expended in this way. But going further than that could, IMO,
> > hurt our ability to operate effectively, and to get the best
> > people to key meetings (rather than just the best-supported
> > people) and we should be careful to not shoot ourselves in the
> > foot in this area.
>
> Exactly. If for whatever reason a person who doesn't have corporate
> support gets appointed to the IAOC, we mustn't have a rule that
> prevents that person from being reimbursed for legitimate expenses.
> The rule that Jonne cited for ISOC Trustees covers that nicely.
>
> The principle that IAOC members donate their time might be
> worth writing down, but expenses are an operational matter.
>
> Brian
--
Jonne Soininen
Nokia
Tel: +358 40 527 46 34
E-mail: jonne.soininen@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf