Re: Last Call: 'Process for the IAB and IESG selection of IAOC members' to BCP

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Comments in line below...

On Jun 14, 2005, at 5:31 AM, Geoff Huston wrote:



It seems to me that what would be required to do so would be three
statements:

   ISOC's appointees do not represent ISOC, in the same way that IAB
   and IESG appointees do not represent the IAB or IESG. They serve
   the entire community.

   Nomcom appointees do not represent a subclass of all IETF
   participants, in the same way that IAB and IESG appointees do not
   represent the IAB or IESG. They serve the entire community.

   Since the IAOC manages the relationship between ISOC and the IETF,
   direct understanding of both IETF and ISOC is of value in all
   appointees.

Is there any reason the document shouldn't say that?


As one of the editors of this document I would note the following in response to your suggestions, by way of explanation as to why these statements are not in this draft:

- This document is a document that is limited to the definition of a procedure for the IAB and IESG to follow. It deliberately does not extend further than that quite limited brief, and did not intend to describe the accountabilities of the individuals that are selected through the application of this process.

Yes, this document, as written, is specifically limited to the definition of a procedure for the IAB and IESG to follow. The question is whether to expand its scope and cover the ISOC and Nomcom appointments as well. Are the criteria for selection the same or different? In the spirit of establishing a cooperative framework, the suggestion on the table is to harmonize the criteria and create one document.

This is only of medium importance. If the answer is no, the IAB and IESG want one document for their two appointments but don't want to enlarge it to cover the others, then ISOC can write its own and presumably someone will write one for the Nomcom appointments.


- More generally, this document does not define the role or accountabilities of the IAOC. This more general objective is part of the intention of RFC 4071. Accountabilities of IAOC members are described in section 3.3 of that document, and it is repeated again in section 4 of that document. In reading that and comparing it to the three statements above its my personal view that this covers the first two of the statements proposed above.

- It is my view that the third statement above is beyond the scope of this draft. From my understanding of the structure we (IETF and ISOC) are in, I would not share your view that the "IAOC manages the relationship between ISOC and the IETF". To my mind the IAOC manages one operational aspect of this relationship, but as far as I can tell there's more to the relationship than just the IAOC.

Ah, yes. There are the pre-existing arrangements where ISOC is in the loop to approve the Nomcom's selection of IAB members, ISOC has a liaison to the Nomcom, and the IETF appoints members to the ISOC board. None of these are intended to be covered by this document, so I agree we need to work on the wording a bit.


However, I would also note that this is an IAB and IESG document, and if the IAB and IESG want these statements edited into the draft, then, of course, its their call.

regards,

   Geoff

Steve

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]