Broadly, I am sympathetic to John's draft. That said, I will argue a bit more on one point. On 13/02/2016 17:01, John C Klensin wrote: > Hi. > > Largely in response to the call from Andrew and others to post > an actual I-D with an alternate proposal, I've just posted > draft-klensin-iaoc-member-01. Note that this is a -01 version > of one of the proposals, referred to in a few postings, to > reform the IAOC membership (and the IAB and IETF Chair roles in > it) a few years ago. It differs from the earlier version in > several respects, but the most important one is that it contains > considerable discussion and rationale for what is being > proposed, probably saving readers of this list some rather long > email messages from me. > > A few things it does not address, or makes proposals about, that > are different from what I think have been trends on the list are > worth calling out: > > --On Wednesday, February 03, 2016 15:30 +1300 Brian E Carpenter > <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I think the IETF Chair slot is a different matter. Yes, the >> IETF Chair is also the IESG Chair, but I don't believe s/he is >> in the IAOC on behalf of the IESG. On the contrary, it's on >> behalf of the IETF. I think it's exactly right that the IETF >> Chair votes in the IAOC, because nobody else has the same >> overview, and also because I believe that any IETF Chair who >> did not closely track the IAOC's business would be >> irresponsible. > > I believe most of the reasoning above but not the conclusion. > I do think that, under normal circumstances, the IETF Chair > would be the right appointee from the IESG. And that statement is one I can agree with. My point is a bit more subtle though. At one point I found myself occupying three jobs simultaneously: 1. IETF Chair 2. IESG Chair 3. General Area Director (Gory details at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-ietf-chair-tasks) The question is, is the IETF Chair in the IAOC as "IETF Chair", "IESG Chair", or both? John's analysis is quite right as far as the IESG Chair is concerned. For example, consider the IAOC's job of overseeing the IAD's job of ensuring that tools such as the tracker are in good shape. IESG input there is essential, but it could be conveyed by any Area Director. However, for some other matters, especially policy matters handled by the Trust, the IESG has no special role - they are community matters, where ultimately it's the IETF Chair who calls consensus. So I see a case for the IETF Chair being in the IAOC ex officio as today, and that is *orthogonal* to the question of an IESG liaison. Brian > However, I think > that unusual circumstances might arise -- that someone else > might be a better choice or that an IETF Chair might be faced > with a choice of doing a good job on a few things or a bad job > on many or that a Nomcom might look at someone and say "really > good IETF Chair material but a bad candidate for the IAOC" -- > and that it is more sensible to give the IESG the discretion to > sort that out. As far as "on behalf of the IETF", that is why > the Nomcom selects several IAOC members and there are proposals > floating around to increase that number or percentage. The > IESG (and, in particular, the IETF Chair) are likely to have > some special insights but, unless those can be effectively > communicated and the rest of the IAOC persuaded, we are talking, > not about better representation of positions but about > concentration of power (comments about "kings" incorporated by > reference). > > Note that the draft contains appendices that discuss other > changes it doesn't make, either because I (and my reading of at > least parts of the list discussion) believe they would be bad > ideas or because they lie outside the scope of the document as > now defined. The most important of those is the question of > whether we have reached the point that we should partially or > completely separate the membership of the IAOC from the Trustees > of the IETF Trust. Comments in Appendix A.2 of the new I-D > address that issue to some extent. > > best, > john > > > >