Avri,
I hear what you are saying. I retained the proposed text for being obliged to respond only when direct by IAB/IESG because people seemed to want it for rate limiting (i.e., preventing DoS). So, we can't just throw it out. We can change it (entirely), but the empty set option does not seem to meet other requirements expressed here.
The one further adjustment I think I would suggest to my text of yesterday is to change "Answered requests... made public" to "All requests...made public". I.e., it should not be possible for the IAD/IAOC to sweep issues under a carpet.
Personally, I believe that does make the IASA ultimately accountable to the IETF community as a whole, even if it is not *instantaneously* accountable to the IETF community for every decision.
And I think it is important that we not lose sight of the other things my proposed text attempted to capture and distinguish.
Leslie.
avri@xxxxxxx wrote:
Hi Leslie,
This formulation is still of the form that does not give the IETF community a direct voice in the review and appeal mechanisms for the IAOC.
I, personally see not reason why the IAOC is not directly addressable by the community and does not have a direct obligation to the IETF community. While I am comfortable with the IESG and IAB being the appeal path for the IAOC, I am not comfortable with them being a firewall for the IAOC.
I think this is a fundamental question that differentiates Margaret's formulation from yours. I also think it is a fundamental question that goes back to issues in the problem statement about the current leadership model: too much influence is focused in one leadership group. One benefit of the creation of the IAOC is that it spreads the task of running of the IETF to another group of people. As such, I think the IAOC must be required to respond directly to the community.
a.
On 25 jan 2005, at 21.15, Leslie Daigle wrote:
--------
3.5 Business Decisions
Decisions made by the IAD in the course of carrying out IASA business activities are subject to review by the IAOC.
The decisions of the IAOC must be publicly documented for each formal action.
3.6 Responsiveness of IASA to the IETF
The IAOC is directly accountable to the IETF community for the performance of the IASA. In order to achieve this, the IAOC and IAD will ensure that guidelines are developed for regular operation decision making. Where appropriate, these guidelines should be developed with public input. In all cases, they must be made public.
Additionally, the IASA should ensure there are reported objective performance metrics for all IETF process supporting activities.
In the case where someone questions that an action of the IAD or the IAOC has been undertaken in accordance with this document or those operational guidelines (including the creation of an appropriate set of such guidelines), he or she may ask for a formal review of the action.
The request for review is addressed to the person or body that took the action. It is up to that body to decide to make a response, and on the form of a response.
The IAD is required to respond to requests for a review from the IAOC, and the IAOC is required to respond to requests for a review of a decision from the IAB or from the IESG.
If members of the community feel that they are unjustly denied a response to a request for review, they may ask the IAB or the IESG to make the request on their behalf.
Answered requests for review and their responses are made public. Reviews of the IAD's actions will be considered at his or her following performance review. Reviews of the IAOC's actions may be considered when IAOC members are subsequently being seated.
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf