Adrian, On Sep 12, 2010, at 6:22 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Bob, > > Since you ask... > > This looks good. Thanks. > The only nit I can pick is with 5.1 > > The BCP calls for rules on expenses to be published. > The "rule" you are publishing is that the IAOC and/or its chair can determine > the expenses it pays to members of the IAOC "for exceptional cases only." > > I have absolutely no doubt of the integrity of the IAOC and its chair, but > this rule is somewhat vague and open to interpretation. It is like using the > word "appropriate" in a protocol spec! > > Could you look at qualifying this in some way to scope the exceptional > circumstances. Perhaps payment of expenses would be made only if the payment > has been agreed before the expense was incurred? As the text says, it is for "exceptional cases". This is from BCP101. I am in my second term on the IAOC and can't remember a case of this being used. My understanding of the intent of the text in BCP101 was that it could be used in a manner similar to the IETF and IAB chairs discretionary funds. For example, to pay for travel expenses for an IAOC member who didn't have any other support to attend a meeting. Would it help if we said that? I am somewhat hesitant to create detailed rules for something that hasn't happened to date. Bob > > Cheers, > Adrian > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Hinden" <[email protected]> > To: "IETF discussion list" <[email protected]> > Cc: "Bob Hinden" <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 5:00 PM > Subject: Re: Revised IAOC Administrative Procedures draft > > >> Hi, >> >> To date, I have not seen any comments. The IAOC is putting this on it's >> agenda for our call next week. >> >> Bob >> >> >> On Aug 12, 2010, at 5:56 PM, Bob Hinden wrote: >> >>> The IAOC solicits feedback on the revised Administrative Procedures draft >>> that is attached. >>> >>> An early draft was sent to the community for comment on 28 May 2010. Many >>> comments received were about how this relates to BCP101, if the IAOC was >>> changing BCP101, creating new rules, or clarifying areas where BCP101 was >>> not clear. The attached draft should clarify these comments. >>> >>> In most cases, it includes the relevant BCP101 text and then describes how >>> the IAOC is implementing this. There are a few cases where BCP101 does not >>> provide specific guidance. In these cases the Administrative Procedures >>> describes what the IAOC is doing as BCP101 requires. >>> >>> The first paragraph of the Administrative Procedures states: >>> >>> RFC 4071 (BCP 101) is the governing authority for IASA, the IAOC and >>> the IAD. It contains clear direction and guidance, but not all the >>> details required for the day-to-day operation of the IETF >>> Administrative Support Activity. BCP 101 section 3.4 specifically >>> tasks the IAOC to decide the details about its decision-making rules >>> and making them public. These Procedures are in response to that >>> requirement, and are further intended to provide clarity for the IAOC >>> and IAD in the execution of operational responsibilities. Further, >>> these procedures are not intended to change BCP 101; that would >>> require another BCP in accordance with section 2.4. >>> >>> We hope this version resolves the concerns raised about the earlier version. >>> >>> Bob Hinden >>> IAOC Chair >>> >>> p.s. I will be on vacation starting next week and will respond to comments >>> when I return. >>> >>> <IAOC Administrative Procedures 8-13-2010.pdf> >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
