Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
...
o Are designated donations specified appropriately? In particular,
does requiring that donations not be "unduly restricted" address
previously stated concerns? This is what the current text says.
It is not yet clear whether the current text is acceptable to
ISOC. We may need to check this with ISOC's accountants first.
I believe it is acceptable to the IETF; I don't speak for ISOC.
Agreed
o It's not yet clear whether we have too much about the IAD task.
Should that task be specified elsewhere, initially by the
Transition Team, later by IAOC or some committee? We need people
to speak up on this. Is the current text OK?
I believe the detail specified is appropriate for the BCP; the
Transition Team is trying to describe the role in more detail as we speak.
Agreed
o Would we want the IAOC to sign off on the yearly (or more
frequent) reports in some formal sense within a reasonable amount
of time? This might protect the IAD from some form of open-ended
lingering responsibility for previous years. It might also
protect against having somebody, five years from now, state "this
is wrong and oh by the way this was already wrong N years ago."
I believe this is implied by the "review" clause in section 3.2; it
would be strange to have the IAOC review the reports and then neither
approve them nor give feedback. I think no more text is needed.
Agreed. In any case the ISOC Board has a duty to approve the audited
accounts, and that is the formal sign-off.
o How should we deal with conflicts between the IAD, the IAOC and
ISOC? This is complicated by the fact that ISOC officially
employs the IAD while a small committee hires and fires and
evaluates the IAD. No new discussion or text has come up since
draft version 01.
I believe the text in the document adequately specifies what each party
is responsible for, and if they keep within those spheres of
responsibility, the risk of conflict is minimized. No new text needed.
Agreed
o How should we deal with disagreements between the ISOC Board of
Trustees and the IAOC regarding business decisions, spending,
hiring, etc?
Same thought as above. (I'm a bit nervous about this - we might want to
work out arrangements later - but this may be something that we can do
without embedding it in the core BCP)
Agreed. If we get such a conflict, we will have to feel our way.
o When do we do a check with accountants and legal advisors? Can
that be done during IETF Last Call, or must that happen first?
I believe we can do this during Last Call - once it is clear what the
IETF wants, it is easier to get the lawyers and accountants to make sure
the language specifies that accordingly.
It's always iterative. It is important that if the text is changed during
Last Call on legal advice, that this is explained carefully to the IETF.
o The text on an appeal against the IAOC (Section 3.4 is pretty
fresh, and some seem to want to narrow down what can be appealed.
Not clear that we have consensus yet.
Please - if someone does not want this - speak up!
I still find the text a bit broad in scope, but it doesn't prevent
summary dismissal of frivolous complaints, so I can live with it.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf