I hope that other IAOC members will share their thoughts too. Here are mine.
Right now, the IETF Trust is faced with more work than usual. The
IPR WG has placed a significant task on the IETF Trust. Yet, all of
the usual IAOC activities need to go forward on the usual
schedule. The reason that I support this action it to ensure all of
these tasks stay on track. We've already seen the need for an extra
teleconference in April to make that happen, and I'm sure there will
me more as the license text begins to be drafted.
As others have already said, separate chairs seems like the right
thing to the people serving on the IAOC right now. That may not be
the desire in a year. I do not see this flexibility as a problem or
a slippery slope.
Russ
At 04:14 PM 4/8/2008, Leslie Daigle wrote:
>Russ,
>
>The IETF Trust was set up as an instrument -- a naturally limited scope.
>
>The specific task you identify below ("paying attention to items")
>could reasonably be addressed as Harald suggested.
>
>Giving the Trust a chair is at least a step towards acknowledging it
>as a separate organization (beyond instrument), and one could then
>examine whether the IAOC members are, in fact, the right people to
>populate it (for example). It certainly opens the doors to mission creep.
>
>My point, which I think is in line with something John Klensin said
>earlier, is that even though the current IAOC _intends_ this as a
>simple administrative change, the fact is it's a structural change
>that is open to be taken many places by future IAOCs and IETF
>communities, also of good intent. Given that, it would be nice to
>understand 1/ that the IAOC has considered this, and 2/ why other
>solutions are not considered viable.
>
>Leslie.
>P.S.: Also -- good luck with ever having a "small" meeting -- with
>4 Chairs in the room, you'll be looking for end-tables pretty soon ;-)
>
>
>--On April 7, 2008 3:45:16 PM -0400 Russ Housley <housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>The IAOC and the IETF Trust have different focus. The idea behind
>>the separate chair is to make sure that someone is paying attention
>>to the items that need to be handled by each body in a timely
>>manner. It is simply a mechanism to help ensure that noting is
>>falling between the cracks.
>>
>>Russ
>>
>>--On April 4, 2008 11:50:23 AM +0200 Harald Alvestrand
>><harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> > After considering the comments so far, I think I disagree with having a
>> > separate Trust chair.
>> >
>> > The idea behind making the IAOC be the Trustees was, among other
>>things, > to make sure that we didn't create yet another nexus of
>>control in the > labyrinth of committees; I understood the legal
>>existence of the > Trustees as something different (in name) from the
>>IAOC to be strictly > something we did for legal purposes
>> >
>> > If the IAOC chair is overburdened by having to manage the IAOC in two
>> > different contexts, get him (or her) a secretary.
>> >
>> > I agree with John's comment that leaving the current trustees in charge
>> > on dissolution of the IAOC is inappropriate; for one thing, that also
>> > removes all the recall mechanisms.
>> > Figure out something else to do in this case.
>> >
>> > Harald
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>IETF mailing list
>>IETF@xxxxxxxx
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf