Spot on, Rob. At this point I think the editors should be working
on what to remove from the document - it has far too much detail
for a process with which we have no experience. Spelling out
the organizational relationships and the high level principles
is hard enough. Can we hope to see a much shorter draft (50% or
less) soon?
I would expect to see an "IASA Operational Procedures" document
after a year or so of experience, which could go into a lot
of these details (e.g. how financial transparency has been
achieved in practice).
Brian
Rob Austein wrote:
An observation, speaking as an individual (not as doc editor):
As far as I can tell, the decision about whether or not the IETF is
trusting ISOC as our partner in the IASA effort was settled by the
apparent consensus that we should follow the "Scenario O" path. I'd
respectfully suggest that, unless someone seriously proposes revisting
that decision, it is a bit late to be deciding whether or not to trust
ISOC. What we need to do now is spell out what it is that the IETF is
trusting ISOC to do.
Thus, my own personal opinion on the current discussion (as opposed to
my confusion on what the IETF wants me and Bert as doc editors to put
in the draft BCP) tends to side with the folks who suggest that:
a) We don't need to nail down issues like separate bank accounts in
the BCP; but
b) We -do- need to specify both what we expect ISOC to do and what we
expect ISOC -not- to do. There are functions we want ISOC to
perform for us (fundraising, office support for the IAD, etc) and
functions we don't want ISOC to perform (chosing contractors for
IASA without IASA being involved, making unilateral decisions about
the disposition of funds that the IETF considers to be its own, and
so forth).
Words in a BCP are not going to prevent a hypothetical ISOC-gone-amok
from doing things that the IETF will think are wrong; in such a case,
I expect that detail issues will have to be left to the folks on the
ground, because we're never going to be able to cover all the possible
ways that said hypothetical ISOC-gone-amok might go off the rails.
Words in a BCP might, however, provide some kind of useful objective
basis for figuring out whether ISOC has done and is doing what the
IETF asked ISOC to do.
I'll now go back to watching the discussion in progress, trying to
figure out what y'all want me and Bert to put in the document.
--Rob
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf