Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The IASA 2.0 effort is discussing the *future* of IASA and the IAOC.
> That isn't my concern here, and there's a mailing list for it
> (https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20).
> What I'm concerned about is that fact that a couple of *current* IAOC
> slots are up for appointment shortly (by NomCom and IESG respectively),
> with several fine candidates in each case.
> All I'm asking is that in their considerations, the appointing bodies
> keep in mind the definition of the IAOC's role:
> The IAOC's role is to provide appropriate direction to the IAD, to
> review the IAD's regular reports, and to oversee IASA functions to
1) do you believe that IAOC cmte have unreasonably expanded their scope?
2) despite this definition, a bunch of new things have shown up for the IAOC,
and that now includes:
* IETF Trust supervision
* Tools cmte: managing contractors
* something else I forgot.
Reading the reports from the IAD is still a major part; but some things have
devolved elsewhere. Also the IAD doesn't necessarily have the right skill
set to figure out technical issues that come from contractors.
Also, financial repors, while puck-handled by the IAD have been provided by
an ISOC resource until September, and now are done by AMSL under contract.
So your advice that to pay attention to the IAD oversight misses the other
kinds of oversight that now also occurs.
{me: non-voting member of finance subcmte, nominee for IESG member.
Note: I've told the IESG that I won't be IAOC chair, and to pick someone else
if they need an IAOC chair}
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [
] mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature