John,
The IAOC's intent in creating these "proposed IAOC administrative procedures" was to write down what we were doing in areas where we thought BCP101 wasn't clear to us or didn't specify anything, and then get feed back from the community. We were not trying to revise or alter BCP101. We wanted this to be transparent to the community. From the comments received so far, I think this wasn't clear enough and we will try to have the next version make this clearer.
Regarding the minutes, what can I say except mea maxima culpa. We have fallen behind and will try hard to get caught up between now and Maastricht.
Bob Hinden
IAOC Chair
On May 29, 2010, at 5:28 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>
> --On Friday, May 28, 2010 10:15 -0700 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.
>
> Hi.
>
> While I appreciate the opportunity to review this document, I
> think several elements of it are not merely ill-conceived but
> improper. Several of the reasons have been given by others but,
> at the risk of repeating:
>
> (1) The IAOC does not have any authority to alter, update,
> restate, modify, or clarify BCP 101. It should avoid text that
> appears to do so, even if the intent is simply to summarize,
> because inadvertent conflicts and confusion are an inevitable
> consequence of doing so. In addition to the examples I remember
> being given by Ted Hardie and others...
>
> (1a) The IAOC may decide to not appoint the IAB or IETF Chairs
> or the ISOC appointee as IAOC Chair, and I think that those
> people would be ill-advised to accept the role for several
> reasons. But BCP 101 is quite clear on the latter and arguably
> clear on the other two: the text says "shall select one of its
> appointed voting members...". Clearly the ISOC-appointed member
> is qualified; the text uses exactly the same terminology to
> describe that person as it does the Nomcom, IESG, and IAB
> appointees, only the appointing body is different. There is
> some ambiguity about the ex-officio voting members -- clearly
> they are appointed by someone. If the IAOC is convinced that
> BCP 101 needs modification, I think the community should see an
> I-D proposing such an update, to be processed via the usual
> consensus process. Trying to make the change via a supposed
> administrative procedure document is just improper.
>
> (1b) The responsibility and accountability relationships are
> also fairly clear in BCP 101 ("...those members do not directly
> represent the bodies that chose them. All members of the IAOC
> are accountable directly to the IETF community....". Trying to
> clarify this can easily change its sense. In particular,
> Section 9 of the new proposal (in addition to issue with
> "disinterested") implies a slightly different set of criteria.
> In addition to the issues mentioned in other notes, Section 9
> reopens the question of the role of the IAB and IESG Chairs as
> ex-officio members of the IAOC. They are either there to
> represent the perspectives of the IAB and IESG and the IAOC's
> perspective back to the relevant bodies (which those "appointed"
> by those bodies explicitly are not) or the justification for
> having those two people ex-officio in those positions
> disappears. If the IAOC believes that should be changed, then,
> again, the IAOC should make a proposal to the community for
> discussion and approval under the normal consensus procedures.
> I note that one such proposal was put on the table some months
> ago but that the relevant Area Director made it clear that he
> had no intention of letting the community consider it.
>
> (1c) The proposed text says "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."
> But BCP 101 indicates that requests "for review should be should
> be addressed to the IAOC chair...", which implies at least one
> additional piece of "power or authority". Again, it seems
> inappropriate for this type of document to restart BCP 101
> provisions in a way that could be interpreted as changing them.
>
> (1d) While I think clear conflict of interest and disclosure
> provisions are a good idea (and I'm actually supportive of Sam's
> formulation), BCP 101 appears to be comprehensive wrt the
> qualifications or IAOC membership. If there is any language in
> it that says "the IAOC may impose additional requirements on its
> membership", I can't find it. If the IAOC imposes a disclosure
> requirement and some member ignores it, the only thing the other
> IAOC members can do about it is to initiate or foment a recall
> action. The Nomcom, IAB, IESG, or ISOC BoT can fairly clearly
> impose disclosure requirements as part of their selection
> process, but cannot enforce later disclosures except, again, by
> recall. If the community doesn't like that (and I think it
> shouldn't like it), then we need to open BCP 101 via the usual
> procedures. About the most the IAOC can do is establish a
> voluntary procedure for such disclosures... which is certainly
> not what the current proposed language does.
>
>
> (2) The IAOC is in breach of its responsibilities to the IETF
> community as specified in BCP 101 as well as commitments it
> made, with some fanfare, about a year ago. Despite promises
> that minutes would more accurately and comprehensively reflect
> decisions and considerations and that they be brought up to date
> and kept up to date, and that professional staff was being used
> to facilitate that, we are now back to having minutes running
> some months behind. That is particularly important to this case
> because the community is, IMO, entitled to see discussion in the
> minutes of the IAOC decision to create this document and its
> evolution, not simply see a "here it is, please comment" note
> from the IAD. Until the minutes are current, and kept current,
> I do not believe that IAOC should be producing new procedural
> documents, nor that the community should approve them, at least
> without a clear exposition of the problems being solved and
> evidence that there is an emergency (of course, if there were
> minutes, I assume we would find both there).
>
> john
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IAOC mailing list
> IAOC@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iaoc
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf