Brian, If we are going to do this, then I tend to agree with your conclusions. > > >> I agree with you that the views of the I* Chairs are important. > > In the case of the IETF Chair I believe the issue is that it's > highly desirable, from a governance viewpoint, that the IETF Chair > has *personal* responsibility in IAOC decisions, and therefore should > be a voting member as a matter of principle. My preference is that the IETF not delegate this responsibility. One additional reason for this is that the IETF chair is appointed by the nomcom (vs. the IAB who appoints their own chair). It is part of the job and an important part. > I don't believe that argument applies to the IAB Chair - we should > IMHO have a collective goal to sharply reduce the IAB's involvement > in administrative issues, so that it can do its architectural and > liaison jobs properly. Delegating the IAB Chair role in the IAOC > would be a step in that direction, along with appointing the permanent > RFC Series Editor. In the case of the IAB, I would prefer that the IAB selected it's representative to the IAOC and that they become the full IAOC voting member (and a member of the IETF trust). That is, it be completely delegated for a fixed term. The IAB could consider this person as a vice-chair or even a co-chair. The both represent other ways to reduce the load on the chair. > We haven't discussed the third proposed delegation, that of the ISOC > President's seat, very much. Assuming it was delegated to another > officer of ISOC, that would seem reasonable too. But it shouldn't > be delegated to just anybody, IMHO. Also agree. I think it should be limited to the CFO or COO. I think, as above with the IAB, it should be fully delegated. Bob _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf