--On Thursday, September 22, 2011 00:12 +0300 Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >... > Also, there is some experience from the other direction: > sometimes it has happened that the chair talks with the IAOC > and they come up with some conclusion, but when he talks to > the rest of us in an IESG meeting we bring up additional > points that may change the conclusion. So whether or not it is > the chair that is in the IAOC meeting, it is important that > there is a discussion with the rest of the body. Yes. And while "how much" will differ with the individuals involved and the dynamics of the IAOC, the claims that the Chairs someone have exclusive knowledge, exclusive perspective, and/or exclusive understanding are essentially arguments that the kind of consultation Jari describes is really unnecessary. I, for one, believe that have IESG and IAB insight (and input) into what is going on in the IAOC/Trust is at least as important as having IAOC/Trust insight into what is going on in the IESG and IAB. And I believe that an appointed member --who might be the Chair but need not be-- is actually likely to help facilitate that two-way communication by making it more clear that the IAB and IESG are expected to maintain some visibility and insight. john _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf