I concur with StJohns. This is a better phrased way of saying the same
thing that I was trying to say.
If SUB-IP Area is to continue past March 2003, then its AD(s) need to be
appointed specifically for that by Nomcom (and ought not be responsible
for more than one area). If the IESG believes the Area will really close
within one year, the IESG should tell Nomcom to make those appointments
for one year rather than two.
This is the only approach fully consistent with documented IETF open
processes.
To do otherwise is to continue with a less-transparent-than-needed approach
to selecting the ADs for that Area.
Ran
On Monday, Dec 9, 2002, at 19:12 America/Montreal, Michael StJohns wrote:
After reading through the discussions and thinking about the IETF needs as a whole, I want to propose a 4th alternative (which is a merge of the opt 2 and 3):
a) Sunset the area with a final decision point as 12/31/2003 and a closing date of 03/01/2004. No further WGs will be chartered in this area.
b) Ask the Nomcom to appoint 1 area director not from the current set of ADs for a term of 1 year. Term would run March 02 to March 03.
I think this approach would accomplish two things: 1) The area would be legitimized for the period of operation and that would bring it under normal IETF procedures. 2) We (the IETF) would have an opportunity to apprentice/train a new AD in a lower stress/load environment than the usual area. In Dec 03, if there is sufficient reason to continue the area, the NOMCOM can act to continue the appointment or to appoint another or other ADs as well as more fully define the charter. If not, the area can close in March.
Mike
_______________________________________________
This message was passed through [EMAIL PROTECTED], which is a sublist of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Not all messages are passed. Decisions on what to pass are made solely by Raffaele D'Albenzio.
