On 2/3/2016 8:39 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
But that doesn't need to
be the IAB chair in every case, and this is one where I think we might
get a benefit if we didn't require the chair."
Hi Andrew - I don't necessarily disagree with this - but, the IAOC and
the IETF trust are linked in a very interesting way. While it might be
useful (and doable) to provide a "pluggable" IAOC IAB member, because
of the way the trust is currently structured I don't think that's a
useful approach.
Individuals shall be eligible to be Trustees only for so long as they
are Eligible Persons.
"Eligible Person" means, subject to Section 6.1, 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, RFC 4071 (April 2005), and any duly approved successor documents,
updates or amendments thereto, including the RFC issued to update
BCP-101 to reflect the establishment of this Trust.
The IAB, IETF and ISOC chairs are members of both the trust and the IAOC
- the latter on an ex-officio basis and the former based on their
membership on the IAOC and their concurrence to serve as a trustee.
The position of the IAB, IETF and ISOC chairs are more or less stable.
The IETF chair generally changes no more than once every two years, the
IAB chair no more than once a year. That stability is useful for both
the IAOC and the trust - indeed, BCP101 has the appointed members
serving for 2 years. If you desire to swap the IAB chair for some other
member of the IAB, you will need to address that stability issue, and,
given that BCP101 is NOT an IAB document, you will have to convince the
community that your proposed changes are in the best interest of the
community, and not just in the best interests of the IAB or the IAB chair.
You *do* have a tool under IAB control to assign an IAB member to the
IAOC: the IAB (per BCP 101) appoints one member of the IAOC. Generally,
you've gone to the community for this member, but there appears to be no
requirement in BCP101 that you do this, you could instead appoint the
member from the body of the IAB with no community approval required.
In any event, the preamble of the draft should address the following:
1) Why should the IAB continue to have an ex-officio member? What
interests of the IETF are served by allowing an ex-officio member from
the IAB?
2) Why should the IAB ex-officio member not necessarily be the IAB
chair? How does the selection of the non-IAB chair ex-officio member
occur in a way that serves the IETF's interests?
3) What is the term of any non-chair ex-officio member? Do they carry
over if their term on the IAB ends? May they be replaced at the IAB
chair's pleasure?
4) Should the IAB continue to have the power to appoint two voting
members? Do the conditions that were in place at the inception of the
IAOC still argue for the current voting structure of the IAOC and IETF
Trust?
The draft addresses the benefits - sort of - to the IAB's concept of its
new structure (e.g. programs), but other than noting that a non-IAB
chair may be more capable in the financial realm, doesn't really address
the rest of these.
I'd suggest reforming this document as proposed language changes to
BCP101 and let the community whack on it that way. The changes to
BCP101 can't be a standalone document without explaining how BCP101
changes and the full impact of those changes. The body of the draft
should propose chapter and line changes to BCP101 along the lines of
"Section xx of BCP101 (RFCxxx) is deleted and replaced with the
following text"....
Alternately, open up the current RFC for changes and publish the
successor document.
Later, Mike