On 2011-04-14 06:19, Bob Hinden wrote:
> Olaf,
>
> On Apr 2, 2011, at 1:28 AM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
>
>> [as editor:]
>>
>> It seems that the high order bit of this discussion circles
>> around the question on whether it a requirement for the
>> IETF Chair to have a voting position in order to
>> effectively perform oversight. Once we figured out where we
>> want to go with that we can think about delegation by the
>> chair vs appointment by the bodies and the implementation
>> details with respect to the trust.
>
> For the record, I don't agree with this summary. That is, I
> still question the basic assumption in the proposal. We have
> "running code" in the IASA model and it appears to work
> reasonable well. Not perfect, of course. In particular I
> think that having the IETF chair, IAB chair, and ISOC
> president as voting members of the IAOC (and IETF Trust) has
> worked very well. It makes them an active part of decisions
> the IAOC and IETF Trust are making and helps keep the IAOC
> from getting disconnected from the community. It also makes
> them share the responsibility for decisions by having their
> vote be publicly recorded.
I agree. I think this responsibility should not be delegated.
It's fundamental to the success of the IETF (and the ISOC for
that matter - the IETF is a major source of ISOC's legitimacy).
The IAOC delegates execution to the IAD etc. - maybe the real
bug is that the IAOC itself needs to delegate more?
> I also don't understand what the effect of the proposal is on
> the IETF Trust. Currently all IAOC members are members of
> the IETF Trust. They have to sign a letter accepting this
> role. I don't think it can then be delegated.
It can't be delegated. However, a duly approved update to BCP101
can change the definition of the formal membership of the
IAOC, and that would automatically change the membership of
the Trust. An alternative would be a formal change to the Trust
Agreement, but since IANAL, I don't know whether a change to
allow delegation or proxies would be possible under the law of
the Commonwealth of Virginia, where the Trust was established.
Brian
>
> Your draft focuses on one area (that is, reducing the burden
> of these positions), but does not discuss any other aspects
> of making this change. What might the negative aspects of
> delegating this responsibility be? How will this be dealt
> with?
>
> Each of the positions (IETF Chair, IAB chair, ISOC President)
> are different in the way they are selected and this effects
> their ability to delegate their responsibility and who they
> might delegate it to. For example, the IETF chair is
> selected by the NOMCOM and one of his/her responsibilities is
> to sit on the IAB, IAOC, and IETF Trust. The IAB chair is
> selected by the IAB. The ISOC president is hired by the ISOC
> Board of Trustees. Consequently, I think the authority to
> delegate differs and they should be considered separately.
>
>> [as olaf:]
>>
>> I agree that the IETF chair needs to have a good oversight
>> about what goes on in the IETF, to a lesser extend it is
>> good that the IAB has that oversight too (specifically with
>> respect to its chartered responsibilities) but I wonder if
>> a voting membership is the appropriate instrument.
>
> Why not? It does appear to work.
>
>> I believe effective oversight depends on having the
>> appropriate high level information and having the
>> opportunity to timely inject information that is needed to
>> steer an outcome. An alternative method for sharing and
>> injecting is having regular meetings between the I* chairs
>> and the ISOC President/CEO. I believe that such meetings
>> are much more effective for the parties involved than being
>> exposed to all details.
>
> Do we really need to have another regular meeting? Would
> this give the I* chairs more authority than they have now?
> Sort of an executive committee. Would these meetings be
> public, have votes, have public minutes?
>
>> This only an illustration of an instrument, there may be
>> other instruments for oversight as well. But I do not think
>> the ex-officio membership is the only method.
>
> It's not perfect but it is the one we have now and it is
> working. We should only change it if we are sure that it
> will improve the overall IASA operation. I am seriously
> concerned about the current proposal.
>
> Bob
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing
> list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
