Adrian, On Sep 12, 2010, at 6:22 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Bob, > > Since you ask... > > This looks good. Thanks. > The only nit I can pick is with 5.1 > > The BCP calls for rules on expenses to be published. > The "rule" you are publishing is that the IAOC and/or its chair can determine the expenses it pays to members of the IAOC "for exceptional cases only." > > I have absolutely no doubt of the integrity of the IAOC and its chair, but this rule is somewhat vague and open to interpretation. It is like using the word "appropriate" in a protocol spec! > > Could you look at qualifying this in some way to scope the exceptional circumstances. Perhaps payment of expenses would be made only if the payment has been agreed before the expense was incurred? As the text says, it is for "exceptional cases". This is from BCP101. I am in my second term on the IAOC and can't remember a case of this being used. My understanding of the intent of the text in BCP101 was that it could be used in a manner similar to the IETF and IAB chairs discretionary funds. For example, to pay for travel expenses for an IAOC member who didn't have any other support to attend a meeting. Would it help if we said that? I am somewhat hesitant to create detailed rules for something that hasn't happened to date. Bob > > Cheers, > Adrian > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Hinden" <bob.hinden@xxxxxxxxx> > To: "IETF discussion list" <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > Cc: "Bob Hinden" <bob.hinden@xxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 5:00 PM > Subject: Re: Revised IAOC Administrative Procedures draft > > >> Hi, >> >> To date, I have not seen any comments. The IAOC is putting this on it's agenda for our call next week. >> >> Bob >> >> >> On Aug 12, 2010, at 5:56 PM, Bob Hinden wrote: >> >>> The IAOC solicits feedback on the revised Administrative Procedures draft that is attached. >>> >>> An early draft was sent to the community for comment on 28 May 2010. Many comments received were about how this relates to BCP101, if the IAOC was changing BCP101, creating new rules, or clarifying areas where BCP101 was not clear. The attached draft should clarify these comments. >>> >>> In most cases, it includes the relevant BCP101 text and then describes how the IAOC is implementing this. There are a few cases where BCP101 does not provide specific guidance. In these cases the Administrative Procedures describes what the IAOC is doing as BCP101 requires. >>> >>> The first paragraph of the Administrative Procedures states: >>> >>> RFC 4071 (BCP 101) is the governing authority for IASA, the IAOC and >>> the IAD. It contains clear direction and guidance, but not all the >>> details required for the day-to-day operation of the IETF >>> Administrative Support Activity. BCP 101 section 3.4 specifically >>> tasks the IAOC to decide the details about its decision-making rules >>> and making them public. These Procedures are in response to that >>> requirement, and are further intended to provide clarity for the IAOC >>> and IAD in the execution of operational responsibilities. Further, >>> these procedures are not intended to change BCP 101; that would >>> require another BCP in accordance with section 2.4. >>> >>> We hope this version resolves the concerns raised about the earlier version. >>> >>> Bob Hinden >>> IAOC Chair >>> >>> p.s. I will be on vacation starting next week and will respond to comments when I return. >>> >>> <IAOC Administrative Procedures 8-13-2010.pdf> >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> Ietf@xxxxxxxx >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf