Mike,
The IAB has oversight responsibility for the RFC Editor. The IAOC oversees
the IAD, who manages contracts for the community, including the RFC editing
contracts. I therefore believe that having a voting IAB member among the voting
members of the IAOC is appropriate. Otherwise the IAB doesn't have a clear
"chain of command" (or, alternatively, "the buck stops here") linkage to
that aspect of the RFC Editor.
A similar argument shows why the IAB should be directly linked to the
IETF Trust, which holds the rights in RFCs and may come to hold the rights in
IANA data.
Neither argument shows that the person needs to be the IAB Chair, IMHO.
I regard this as quite disjoint from how the ordinary members of the IAOC
are appointed. Splitting that job between the IESG, the IAB and the Nomcom
was a fairly arbitrary choice, but I think the Nomcom has a big enough
job already.
Brian
On 07/02/2016 05:25, Michael StJohns wrote:
> Hi Andrew -
>
> Before I get into your body text, I'm going to do some level setting.
>
> There are actually two questions to be asked and answered with respect to the IAB and the IAOC:
>
> 1) How many members of the IAOC should the IAB appoint?
> 2) What constraints should be applied to those appointments?
>
>
> The possibilities as I see them:
>
> --- Status quo:
> The IAB appoints two members one of which shares the body and term of the IAB chair, the other has no constraints other than
> being appointed for two years.
> [Narrative: This is the original and current model and assumes that there is benefit to the IAB and the IAOC of having the
> IAB chair as a member of the IAOC]
>
> --- Draft proposes
> The IAB appoints two members one of which shall be an IAB member and the other with no constraints. Note that the draft does
> not address the term of the IAB member on the IAOC, nor whether the member can be replaced by the IAB whenever they want.
> [Narrative: The IAB chair has a lot on his plate and the IAOC isn't as important to the IAB as other things, but the IAB
> would like to continue to appoint two members including one from the IAB.]
>
> --- Other possibilities.
> The IAB appoints no members.
> [Narrative: The IAB has little or no relevance with respect to the administration of the IETF and the IETF would probably be
> better off if the two members currently appointed by the IAB were appointed by the Nomcom on the standard two year basis.]
>
> The IAB appoints one member with no constraints other than the two year term. The IAB MAY appoint an IAB member to the IAOC,
> however that member will serve for the full two year term even if their IAB term ends.
> [Narrative: The IAB has only minor relevance with respect to the administration of the IETF and it makes sense to let the IAB
> decide how involved they want to be.]
>
> The IAB appoints one member with the constraint that the member is from the IAB and serves a one year term at each appointment.
> [Narrative: The IAB has some occasional relevance with respect to the administration of the IETF and the IETF feels that
> having a permanent IAB member benefits both the IAOC and the IAB]
>
>
> Note that I generally believe that "benefits the IAB" generally comes down to "we hear what's going on and we get a vote" rather
> than anything broader. "Benefits the IAOC" generally comes down to "having the IAB chair here means that we get buy-in and some
> of his time to deal with the niggling details" or something similar. These are actually somewhat quid pro quo things and we
> probably shouldn't sever the relationship between them without understand what each side gains/loses.
>
> For the options above, I'm actually leaning towards either no IAB appointees or one IAB member appointee. Basically, its no
> longer clear why the IAB should be selecting two members of the IAOC.
>
> More inline below:
>
>
>
> On 2/5/2016 7:26 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 10:31:14PM -0500, Michael StJohns wrote:
>>> The position of the IAB, IETF and ISOC chairs are more or less stable.
>> The IETF and ISOC chairs have nothing to do with this draft, so I'll
>> set that aside. The position of IAB member is more stable than IAB
>> chair, since the IAB chair is always appointed for one year.
> The "nothing to do with this draft" is a bit of sophistry as the IAB, IETF and ISOC were given the exact same setup in how they
> related to the IAOC (e.g. chair plus one appointee). If you're readdressing whether or not the IAB chair should serve on the
> IAOC, it's probable that we should also take a look at the other ex-officio positions as they have the same original basis as
> the IAB. Yes, this is a draft from the IAB - but it probably shouldn't be.
>
>
> The draft does not discuss the term of the IAB member on the IAOC. What happens if you appoint someone with only 6 months left
> on their IAB term? Can the IAB replace the person at any time? Given that the IAB can replace program chairs at any time and
> you've got the ex-officio member being the program chair, it would be useful to make this explicit.
>
>>> years. If you desire to swap the IAB chair for some other member of the
>>> IAB, you will need to address that stability issue,
>> Surely, then, the way to do this is for the IAB to appoint someone for
>> a year, since that is the expected lifetime of the _ex officio_
>> membership anyway?
>
> Yup. Add it to the draft. I would also say that you can't appoint someone to the IAOC who has less than a year left on the IAB.
>>
>>> 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.
>> Yes, which is why the draft is not intending to be an IAB stream
>> document. I thought that was obvious.
>
> Let's see. The document does not purport to modify BCP101; the only reference to the IAOC RFC is in the introduction and only
> to explain how the IAOC was born; there is no reference to text in the BCP that would need to be modified; and all you talk
> about is the IAB...
>
> How is "not an IAB stream" document obvious except through these discussions?
>
>>
>>> You *do* have a tool under IAB control to assign an IAB member to the IAOC:
>> But that's irrelevant to the current draft, which is not about the
>> person the IAB appoints but about an appointment that currently
>> happens as an accident of some other position.
>
> See my comments above. If you're going to open up the question of "who", I think that the question of "how many" is also relevant.
>
>>
>>> 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?
>> I don't understand why people keep putting the burden of proof that
>> way. Why should the IAB _ex officio_ member be the IAB chair? BCP101
>> makes no effort to justify that, as near as I can tell, and actually
>> calls out a reason not to do this: " While there are no hard rules
>> regarding how the IAB and the IESG should select members of the IAOC,
>> such appointees need not be current IAB or IESG members (and probably
>> should not be, if only to avoid overloading the existing leadership)."
>
> Hmm... apples and oranges. The section you quoted applies to the non-ex-officio members.
>
> With respect to the rest - of course you always have to justify changes, and like it or not, this is a change from the status quo.
>
> Think of this as a contract negotiation - its probably the closest analog. I understand that you want to do something that
> provides you (in your persona as IAB chair) an immediate benefit by reducing your responsibilities. I'm asking "what's in it
> for the rest of us?" What is the benefit to the IETF for making the change? (And related to this, what is the benefit to the
> IETF for letting the IAB retain the power to appoint two members of the IAOC?)
>
>>
>> In any case, I think there's more than one reform that might be nice,
>> and it seems to me that those who think we need to solve a different
>> problem than the one Ted, Russ, and I are suggesting ought to produce
>> their own draft, so that different approaches can be evaluated.
>
> I saw Ted's comment. It reminded me of a time where I was buying a car and I made an offer and the sales manager suggested I
> make a higher offer rather than them making a counter offer. I see no need to argue against myself.
>
> I'm perfectly happy if you only want to address the IAB stuff, BUT, this draft in its current form is inadequate to do that. It
> needs to address changes to BCP101 and provide specific text changes to that document so the rest of us can figure out both what
> you're proposing and whether or not - taken as a whole - that will work for the IAOC and the IETF.
>
> Later, Mike
>
>
>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> A
>>
>
>