--On Monday, June 29, 2015 07:36 -0700 The IESG
<iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter
> to consider the following document:
> - 'Updating the Definition of Term for IAOC Members'
> <draft-bradner-iaoc-terms-01.txt> as Best Current Practice
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
> solicits final comments on this action. Please send
> substantive comments to the ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by
> 2015-07-27.
Hi.
I just skimmed through this draft. It appears to solve the
problem of an overly specific requirement by substituting
additional overly specific requirements.
Wouldn't it be better to define a window between whenever the
Nomcom announces its selections and the end of the first IETF
meeting of the year and then
(i) Allow the IAOC (see below) to define the time and
conditions (face to face or teleconference) of its
transitional meeting within that window.
(ii) Give the new members the vote at the beginning of
that meeting and specify (if it is really necessary)
that outgoing members do not vote for the Chair.
(iii) Terminate any expiring terms at a time of the
IAOC's choosing during that meeting or at any later
time during the window.
(iv) Terminate the term of the Chair at the end of that
meeting or when a successor is selected, whichever
occurs first.
If we need to worry about the outgoing IAOC, or outgoing
members, gaming the timing of that meeting or any votes taken
during the deliberately-ambiguous meeting window going badly
astray, then I suggest we have far worse problems than this
term-timing question. In addition, while the window is smaller
under the proposal in the I-D, the outgoing members could
theoretically decide to hold a lame duck session just before the
IETF meeting and work whatever mischief they had in mind so the
I-D doesn't protect against that possibility either.
I also note that, while the end of the IETF meeting week is
quite well defined, its beginning is not: Does that week start
with the Sunday even reception? The Sunday tutorials? Any IESG
or IAB meetings or workshops that might be held Sunday,
Saturday, or even Friday? Some other definition? If the IAOC
decided it needed an uninterrupted full-day meeting on the
Friday before the opening reception, would that count as the
transitional meeting under the terms of the I-D? Would the new
members be allowed to vote? attend? Would it be possible to
select a new Chair and, if so, who would vote? The point is
that, in practical terms, the I-D just substitutes one set of
problematic constraints for another.
Again, it would be sad to replace one document that, as this I-D
notes, has had to be fudged somewhat, with one that could invite
different kinds of fudging. If we were really worried about
the process being abused, we could address it by giving
newly-appointed members the vote after some fixed period after
the Nomcom announced the new appointments or by asking the
Nomcom to designate the transition point and letting the Chair
turn over as soon after that point as a successor can be
appointed but not later than something (like the end of the IETF
meeting). However, I assume that level of precautions are
unnecessary and constitute worrying about the wrong problem(s).
best,
john