I've generally stayed out of this discussion, but let me offer a word
of support to Bob, et al re maintaining some flexibility. There are
two very strong protections already in place in this system. First,
the operation of the IAOC -- and IASA -- are fully documented and
visible. If the IAOC does something inappropriate, it will become
visible and everyone will learn from it. Second, bills get paid
through ISOC's normal processes. ISOC has a set of controls in place
to document expenses and make sure they follow the expected set of
rules. In addition to these strong protections, a questionable
expenditure, even if it's several thousand dollars, isn't going to go
irreparable harm to the IETF or ISOC. Trying to prescribe a strict
set of rules in addition to these protections is counterproductive and
may remove flexibility that's needed for the benefit of the IETF at
some future time.
The IETF's success, and, indeed, the success of the whole Internet,
has come from maximum flexibility and minimum a priori rules and
permissions. We can easily afford to wait for the IAOC to screw up in
some egregious fashion before we have to draft and administer rules to
prevent subsequent abuses. In the meantime, let the IAOC do its job
on behalf of the community.
Steve
Full disclosure: I was on the committee that formulated the IAOC and I
served on the IAOC for a period of time.
On Sep 13, 2010, at 1:16 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Sep 13, 2010, at 12:39 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Several interesting responses, thanks.
I agree that detailed rules would be onerous and unable to cope
with the exceptional circumstances that the condition is intended
to cover.
On the other hand BCP101 does seem to require some rules.
Dave said:
There are enough hassles for the IAOC tasks; let's wait to impose
stricter rules until we see clear evidence they are needed.
OK, I think that provides a way forward. Let's put in place a
mechanisms that allows the flexibility (i.e., not change to the
"under exceptional circumstances" and "with agreement of the IAOC
chair or the IAOC"), but remove the risk of surprise by inserting
"with prior agreement",
I am not sure that the prior agreement is a good idea. What may
trigger this is something like
IAOC member shows up for IAOC event at X, finds that the room
reservation (or breakfast or projector or ...) has been canceled (or
is for the wrong date or ...) and that this problem can be fixed if
they put down a payment immediately. Most of the rest of the IAOC is
in transit, and prior agreement in terms of a vote cannot possibly
be obtained until it may be too late. The missing item in the normal
course of events would be paid for out of the IASA budget.
If I were to be placed in that situation, I would go ahead, put the
money down, and hope to be reimbursed, prior authorization or no.
and supply a way of determining whether stricter rules are needed
by requiring "annual reporting of expenses paid".
I have no problem with that. As a suggestion, let's leave the text
alone, and add
Any reimbursement of expenses to IAOC members for IAOC expenses will
be reported in the minutes and in the annual reports by the IAOC
Chair.
(Such reports are required, and have been given in plenary.)
Marshall
Marshall
Cheers,
Adrian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf