John,
Thanks for your note.
Russ,
Let me add a comment, noting that I'm currently on the ISOC board and also on the IASA Transition Team. Since the Transition Team is essentially an interim (and restricted) version of the IAOC, I'm roughly in the position of being the ISOC-appointed person to the IAOC. (And I don't know whether I'll be appointed to the IAOC when it's constituted.) Also, I'm speaking as an individual, not representing the rest of the ISOC board or anyone else.
With respect to your specific suggestions, my views are:
1. Yes, I agree it's desirable that the ISOC appointee should understand the IETF, its standards process, and the appointee should also have a general understanding of contracts and finances. I don't think we'd want to cast this in concrete or use any present metric for measuring these qualities, but I think these are, indeed, desirable qualities. I would expect the ISOC board would likely take these into consideration.
2. I am of mixed minds with respect to whether the ISOC appointee should or should not be a sitting ISOC board member. On the one hand, it's important that the IASA operation get close attention and understanding from the board. This will operate to the benefit of IASA. That suggests a sitting board member may be more beneficial to the IASA than someone who's not.
On the other hand, everyone is very busy, and getting someone from outside the ISOC board is a way of increasing the labor pool, which is always a good thing.
3. With respect to choosing someone through an open process, I think we'll have to see how things work out. In the early days, the key thing will be to get this operation up and going. We already have so many levels of checks and balances and so many requirements for transparency that I don't think it's essential to subject each piece of this operation to yet another open process (YAOP). Open processes are inherently slow and time-consuming. But lest I sound biased against it, I don't have a problem with this sort of selection if others also want to do it. But I think it falls squarely within the purview of the ISOC board to decide this. The IAOC is already defined in terms of two seats from each of three constituencies -- IESG, IAB and ISOC -- plus two more chosen through a Nomcomm process, and I think it then falls within the purview of each of those constituencies to make their appointments. ISOC has just one appointment in addition to the pres/CEO, so there's not much risk the appointee will unbalance things greatly. And, at least as I assess things at this point, our biggest problem is finding finding qualified people to fill the slot.
Steve
John C Klensin wrote:
Russ,
While this strikes me as mostly harmless, I don't think it belongs in this document. The document itself is an IETF document. It has gotten a good deal of useful input from ISOC staff, Board members, and interested parties, and we expect ISOC to sign off on it, but it remains an IETF document. We could have done it in other ways --which might have been either better or worse-- but we didn't.
I think it would be good if ISOC made its procedures public once they decide on them. But, if the document starts dictating procedures to them, it both constrains future evolution unnecessarily and might constitute a barrier to getting swift ISOC BoT signoff on the document as they debate their own long-term procedures in this area.
Like others, I'm reconciled to the fact that we will probably have to revise the BCP in a year or two. But I still think we should keep any specifics and details that don't strictly need to be in the document out of it, lest those force early revisions over issues that are ultimately not important.
best, john
--On Thursday, 03 February, 2005 11:23 -0500 Russ Housley <housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-06.txt Structure of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) (BCP)
COMMENT
Section 4 includes a discussion of the process for selection of IAOC members. There is not a paragraph that covers the member appointed by the ISOC Board of Trustees. However, the guidance provided to the IAB and the IESG seems appropriate for the ISOC Board of Trustees as well:
- Appointees need not be current ISOC Board of Trustees members (and probably should not be);
- The ISOC Board of Trustees should choose people with some knowledge of contracts and financial procedures, who are familiar with the administrative support needs of the IAB, the IESG, or the IETF standards process.
- The ISOC Board of Trustees should follow a fairly open process, perhaps with an open call for nominations or a period of public comment on the candidates.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf