Olaf, On Mar 30, 2011, at 1:21 PM, Olaf Kolkman wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > I have just chartered a very short draft that intends to update BCP101. It can be found at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kolkman-iasa-ex-officio-membership > > The draft is very short and contains only a few sentences of substance: > > The IETF chair, the IAB chair, and the ISOC President/CEO may > delegate their responsibilities to other persons. The delegations by > the IETF chair and the IAB chair need to be confirmed by the IESG and > IAB respectively. The terms of delegation is for a longer term for > instance aligned with the IESG and IAB appointment cycles (roughly > anual). To clarify, from our 1:1 discussions, the intent is to allow the IETF chair to delegate their position on the IAB, IAOC, and IETF Trust, allow the IAB chair to delicate their position on the IAOC, IETF Trust, and IESG, and the ISOC President to delegate their position on the IAOC, IETF-Trust, and IAB. From reading the discussion, it not clear to me that everyone understands this. The above text does not say "delegate their ex-officio memberships", it says "delegate their responsibility". That is it ways they can delegate all of their responsibility. I don't think this was your intent, but if it was it goes too far. Please clarify. > John Klensin made me aware he also had a similar idea earlier: > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-klensin-iaoc-member-00.txt > > The main difference is between his and this draft is that John's I-D makes the person the chair delegates to a non-voting liaison. I have a small preference for the IAB and the IESG keeping the control point, and I implicitly assume that for IASA matters the persons delegated to will escalate to the chairs and ask for specific guidance when appropriate. I realize that for the Trust anybody serves on personal title. For the trust alignment with the IAOC membership is just a practical considerations. With my IAOC hat on, I am concerned about the delegation of these roles to the IAOC. I think the community has been well served by the IAOC having the IETF chair, IAB chair, and ISOC President as full voting members of the IAOC. It has kept the IAOC from "going off the rails". I am concerned that this proposal will weaken the effective governance model that has worked well. I haven't checked yet, but would these proposed changes require changes to any of the IETF Trust documents? More may have to change than BCP 101. Did you check? I don't have any issue with the delegation of the ex-officio responsibilities to/from the IAB and IESG. > > The shared requirement is unloading the I* chairs and the ISOC president and empowering the people that serve in that role to organize themselves. (I should have paid more attention to this much earlier.) > > I plan to seek a sponsoring AD for getting this I-D published as a BCP shortly. Doesn't a BCP require a 4 week last call? I don't think this can or should be done quickly. It's a non-trivial change. Bob > > Assuming this is an appropriate list for further discussion, > yours, > > --Olaf > > > ________________________________________________________ > > Olaf M. Kolkman NLnet Labs > Science Park 140, > http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ 1098 XG Amsterdam > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf