|
Hi Jari - See below.
On 2/17/2016 4:26 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: There may be a reason from the IAOC's point of view to require the ISOC president in the ISOC slot, but then again there may not - I'd like to hear from them on this point.Well, I don't think that it's really the IAOC's call.(Background for others - the IAOC has ISOC CEO as an ex officio member in the board, but ISOC also names one of the other members.) The member they name is an at-large member that does not, per the IAOC charter, represent the ISOC per se. The ISOC BOT names this member. I wanted to provide my opinion. For what it is worth, while the CEO hopefully does not spent a huge amount of time with various IAOC detail issues, I have found the presence of the CEO extremely helpful on a number of occasions. There are some big topics where it has been very important for her (or them) to be in the team. IETF and ISOC are bound together from the administrative and financial perspective, and there are some topics where the leadership just has to be involved. Now, I am not saying that the ex officio slot has to be filled by the CEO. And different CEOs might have different skill sets and focus areas, and there are other arrangements with respect to the role in the IAOC. Other people, for instance, the CTO, could and have filled in many situations. But what I am saying is that there are some topics where there CEO pretty much has to be involved, either as part of the team or otherwise, because they are core questions not just to us but also for ISOC in their role. How is financing of the IETF going to evolve in the future? What ISOC share of IETF’s budget is feasible? Are you going to back us up if X happens? How do we approach a large sponsorship discussion? These are all questions that we have to deal with. Jari Hi Jari - Your post helped me figure out what questions (I think) should be asked: 1) Who gets to/needs to participate in the business of the IAOC? (Who gets a voice?) 2) Who gets to vote on the business of the IAOC? (and if organizational, how many votes?) 3) How do we (or who get's to ) decide if (1) and (2) have to be the same person for any given organization? (1) and (2) need not necessarily be the same person as you've indicated, but are currently for the IAB, IESG/IETF and IAOC.
With respect to the IAB, the above bullet point tries to differentiate between things that they'd like to have a say in and things that are related directly to the IAB's chartered responsibilities. At this point, I don't know what the above could mean for changes with the IAOC composition and voting structre- but I've made a few suggestions. I do believe that considering changes to IAB participation in isolation as Ted Hardie's draft wants to do is probably not the right approach. I can live with the status quo which is why I didn't provide my own draft. But, if we're going to change anything on the IAOC, I believe we should review all of the going in assumptions and original biases and see if they still hold before mucking with the structure piecemeal. Later, Mike |