Re: Proposed IAOC Administrative Procedures

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

 



Thanks for forwarding these, some comments in-line.

On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 10:15 AM, IETF Administrative Director
<iad@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> All;
>
> The IAOC is considering the adoption of IAOC Administrative Procedures
> and seeks your comments before adoption.  These procedures address such
> matters as quorums, voting, election and removal of the chair,
> compensation and expenses, and recusal.
>
> The proposed procedures are set out below to facilitate your review and
> comment.
>
> Thanks
>
> Ray
> IETF Administrative Director
>
> IAOC Administrative Procedures 5-27-10
>
> 1.      The IAOC shall hold at least ten meetings each calendar year, as face
> to face meetings, as teleconferences at which all participants can speak
> and hear each other, or as a combination.
>
>        a.  Notice of the place and time of each regular meeting of the IAOC
> shall be provided to each member by email at least ten days before the
> date of the meeting.

It is common to have different notice requirements for in-person and
teleconference meetings.  I would suggest that the IAOC do the same,
using something like 30 days for in-person and two weeks for teleconferences.

>
>        b.  Special meetings of the IAOC may be called at any time by the Chair,
> or by a majority of the members of the IAOC then in office.  Special
> meetings shall be held at such place or places as may be designated in the
> notice for the meeting.
>

Provided it meets the requirements of A.

> 2.      The IAOC shall select one member to serve as the Chair.
>        a. Members eligible to serve as Chair are the NomCom, IESG and IAB
> appointees to the IAOC, which does not include the IETF and IAB Chairs.
>

Note that ISOC Board also appoints a member of the IAOC according
to Section 4 of BCP 101; this does not include any information on whether
that appointee could serve.

The section above is actually a modification of BCP 101, in my opinion,
in that it restricts the choice of the IAOC in whom it may select as chair.
According to BCP 101, only a similarly approved document may modify
it, so I think this has to be out of scope.

The paragraphs in b,c,d are actually a restatement of parts of section
4 of BCP 101, and I'd suggest you either state plainly that this is the
case or not include them.  We don't want to get into discussions of
which text rules a particular matter there.

>        b. The term of the Chair shall be one year from the time of selection or
> the     remaining time of his or her tenure, whichever is less.  An
> individual may serve any number of terms as Chair, if selected by the IAOC
> members.
>
>        c. The Chair serves at the pleasure of the IAOC and may be removed from
> that position at any time by a two-thirds vote of the IAOC, not counting
> the IAOC chair, at a meeting or Special Meeting at which such action was
> in the notice of the meeting.
>
>        d. The Chair shall (i) have the authority to manage the activities of
> the IAOC and (ii) convene and preside over meetings of the IAOC, but shall
> have no other powers or authority beyond his or her powers as an IAOC
> member.   If the Chair is not available, then any other voting member may
> convene or preside over meetings of the IAOC in the  absence of the Chair.
>
>
> 3.  A quorum for a meeting of the IAOC shall be a majority of the IAOC
> then in office.  All decisions of the members must be approved by majority
> vote of the members then in office.
>

I'm fine with this, but I note that there are commonly matters for which a
majority of those present, rather than of all members, is suffcient.  Do you
wish to make such a distinction?


>                a.  Except for removal of the Chair, any action of the IAOC may be
> taken by e-vote upon the request of the Chair, or by consensus of the
> members.
>
>                b.  Actions of the IAOC, whether taken at a meeting or by e-vote, shall
> be duly recorded in minutes and retained in the IAOC's records.
>
> 4.      The IAOC shall from time to time appoint a Secretary, who shall record
> and publish minutes of the meetings.
>
> 5.      The IAOC shall from time to time appoint a Legal Counsel to the IAOC.
>
> 6.      The IETF Administrative Director is authorized to execute decisions of
> the IAOC on behalf of the IAOC.
>
> 7.      The IAOC voting members shall not receive any compensation for their
> services as IAOC members from the IASA, ISOC, or IETF.   Expenses for
> voting members of the IAOC may be reimbursed upon approval of the IAOC
> Chair, or by a consensus of the IAOC, for exceptional cases only.
>

I'm not sure that 7 is appropriate.  Board members for ISOC can receive
travel expense reimbursement for work undertaken for the Board; it if chose
to provide it for its appointee under a policy like
http://www.isoc.org/isoc/general/trustees/travel.shtml
why would the IAOC object?  I also prefer having expense reimbursement
reviewed by at least two people; could we ask ISOC's CFO to act as the second
reviewer?

> 8.      The IAOC shall be guided by RFC 4071, as amended and supplemented.
>

I think guided by RFC 4071 is entirely to loose.  It is governed by it.


> 9.      Members shall at all times act in a disinterested manner and consider
> only the benefit to the IETF standards process and community as a whole in
> discussions and decisions. The Members shall promptly disclose any
> material conflict of interest and recuse themselves from related
> decisions.
>

While I grok what you mean by "act in a disinterested manner" it sounds a
bit if you'd like them to cultivate ennui.  Perhaps "In the discharge of their
duties, member shall at all times act only in the interests of the
IETF community.
Members shall promptly disclose any material conflict of interest, and they
will recuse themselves from decisions where such conflict is present."

> 10.      These procedures may be amended by a motion passed by a meeting of
> the IAOC. Substantive amendments will be posted in advance for a two week
> period for comments from the IETF community.

I note that it is common to have a higher bar than simple majority for
changes to things
like by-laws.  If these were just administrative procedures, simple
majority with
two week notice would be fine.  But these seem to me to stray a bit from that.
A change in the conflict of interest policy, which seems to be embedded in this,
seems to me to require a higher bar and longer consultation.

Just my thoughts on it, obviously,

regards,

Ted Hardie



> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list



> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf



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