Hi Olaf, I went through the draft just now, and I have some quite strong feelings about it. I'm sorry I'm sending my comments so late in the game. A disclaimer first: I was the chairman of the IAOC some years back, but I haven't been actively involved with IETF administration after that. Therefore, my reactions are based on the history, and I don't necessarily have the up-to-date information of today, anymore. Anyways, I thank Olaf of bringing up this real problem: the IAOC is a lot of work measured in time, and effort. At least, when I was there, I think it was too much work for people who were already busy in so many other ways. However, I think the solution is a bit "menemistä perse edellä puuhun" (== putting the cart before the horse): The IAOC should be a _strategic_ body that gives a direction for the administration of the IETF. Basically IAOC is the closest you have to the board of the IETF (financial management, asset management, management of the operations). Therefore, by design, you have the stakeholders represented in the body (the main chairs, the president and CEO of ISOC). The Trust on the other hand is everything the IETF has (as ownership - the biggest asset the IETF has is of course the community). It owns the fruits of the labour of the whole community - the intellectual property that the community creates. I think it is very clear that the main stakeholders (the I* chairs) and the main responsible for the administrator of the trust (the president/CEO of ISOC) have to be trustees and show ownership of the trust - you just cannot delegate that. Like said, I understand the problem: The IAOC is a lot of work for people who already have a lot to do. However, I think that problem should be managed without reducing the oversight of the IETF leadership over the IETF financials, assents, and other important activities. Perhaps, the IAOC should think how to reorganize, and strengthen the operational part of the IETF to reduce the burden of the IAOC. This might mean increasing the level of investment to the operations of the IETF to make sure the IAOC members do not have to be part of the operational stuff, but can concentrate on making just the strategic decisions and doing the oversight. If I would have to summarize this all into one sentence: The workload problem is a problem only the IAOC can fix, and cannot be done by reorganizing the IAOC. Sorry for the long e-mai. Cheers, Jonne. -- Jonne Soininen Renesas Mobile Tel: +358 40 527 4634 E-mail: jonne.soininen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx On 9/19/11 11:05 AM, "Olaf Kolkman" <olaf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >Brian, > >So far you are the only person that has responded with substance. Other >feedback was promised but never arrived. I hope to rev this document >shortly so that we can finalize it before the Taiwan meeting. > >I wrote: >>> Based on the discussion I've updated the draft: >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kolkman-iasa-ex-officio-membership >>> >>> Essentially I incorporated Dave Crocker's proposal to >>> 1) replace the 'chairs' by voting members appointed by the respective >>>bodies. >>> 2) allow the chairs to participate in all meetings and provide >>>(unsolicited) advice. >>> >>> I believe that allows chairs to exercise their responsibilities of >>>keeping a coherent perspective of the organization an allow them to >>>steer outcomes if needed, but doesn't require the day-to-day >>>involvement that is required from a diligent voting member. >> > >You responded: > >> And it therefore removes the two Chairs' shared responsibility for >>decisions of >> the IAOC and the IETF Trust. I am still far from convinced that this is >>a good >> thing. >> > >That is correct, under this proposal the chairs don't have voting >responsibilities in the IAOC. And while I argue that the chairs can >'steer' as ex-officio I understand that is something you are either >convinced off or not. > > >> Also, the new section 2.3, which is incorrectly titled but presumably >> is intended to be "IETF Trust membership" seems to me to be inconsistent >> with the Trust Agreement. The Trust Agreement states that the Eligible >>Persons >> (to become Trustees) are each "a then-current member of the IAOC, duly >>appointed >> and in good standing in accordance with the procedures of the IAOC >>established >> pursuant to IETF document BCP 101 [as amended]". That doesn't exclude >>the >> non-voting members of the IAOC, which is why the IAD is already a >>Trustee. >> To change this, the Trust would have to change the Trust Agreement. To >>be clear, >> I'm not saying this can't be done, but it can't be ignored either. > > > >Yes, it is incorrectly titled. > >As far as I understand the trust agreement the voting members and the IAD >are members of the trust. If the 'chairs' are non-voting members of the >IAOC then the idea is that they would not be trustees and a modification >of the trust agreement is not needed. That can be clarified. > >If the chairs should be trustees (are you arguing that?) then I agree, a >trust agreement modification is needed. > > > >--Olaf > > > > >________________________________________________________ > >Olaf M. Kolkman NLnet Labs >http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Ietf mailing list >Ietf@xxxxxxxx >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf