I had the comments below on a previous incarnation of "how to fix the
IAOC because Chairs are overloaded".
I have to say -- I don't think the substantive points are addressed in
the new proposal, which leaves the Chairs as spectators to the IAOC process.
I don't think you can disagree with me that, with no vote (recognized
voice) in a committee's work, there's even less possibility to find the
hours to keep up with the substance of discussions and thus be able to
contribute meaningfully to a discussion when the time comes.
Substantively -- this takes the Chairs off the IAOC, just as the
original proposal did, and my comments/confusion/questions below are
still current for me.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-klensin-iaoc-member-00.txt
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 18:06:07 -0400
From: Leslie Daigle <leslie(_at_)thinkingcat(_dot_)com>
To: IETF discussion list <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
CC: John C Klensin <klensin(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
I'm having troubles reconciling a couple of things:
1/ Recent discussion (different draft) on the importance of the IAOC
implementing IETF (and IAB) policy and admin requirements; not having
the IAOC *setting* those requirements;
2/ Suggesting that the IAB & IETF Chairs should not be on the IAOC.
As it stands the IETF Chair is in a unique position to understand all
the requirements of the IETF community and IETF administrative
activities. There isn't someone else who can step in: all other IESG
members are tasked, as a primary responsibility, with looking after
their particular areas.
The IAB Chair similarly sits at the confluence of all the issues hitting
the IAB, and is specifically responsible for tracking them so that they
get addressed by the IAB. While the IAB Chair can, in theory, delegate
actions on particular topics, it at least used to be the case that some
tasks are too tricky or unappealing to get other involvement(too admin,
not enough architectural content). And, even with successful delegation
of individual tasks, the IAB Chair retains the perspective across all
the activities -- technical, IANA, RFC Editor, etc.
I'm not going to disagree that the jobs are heavily loaded, and that
it's a problem for the IETF that the organization relies heavily on
finding a solid candidate for each of these complex positions.
However, I think taking them off the IAOC is *not* the place to start.
It makes more sense to me to sort out the organizational challenges
(of the IESG/IETF, and of the IAB) that cause overloading of these
positions, and *then* see what makes sense in terms of identifying IAOC
Pulling these positions off the IAOC would succeed in weakening the
IAOC, even as it increases the stress levels in the positions as the
respective Chairs try to figure out what is going on with the
administrative support for the balls they are trying to keep moving.
On 9/19/11 4:05 AM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
So far you are the only person that has responded with substance. Other
feedback was promised but never arrived. I hope to rev this document shortly so
that we can finalize it before the Taiwan meeting.
Based on the discussion I've updated the draft:
Essentially I incorporated Dave Crocker's proposal to
1) replace the 'chairs' by voting members appointed by the respective bodies.
2) allow the chairs to participate in all meetings and provide (unsolicited)
I believe that allows chairs to exercise their responsibilities of keeping a
coherent perspective of the organization an allow them to steer outcomes if
needed, but doesn't require the day-to-day involvement that is required from a
diligent voting member.
And it therefore removes the two Chairs' shared responsibility for decisions of
the IAOC and the IETF Trust. I am still far from convinced that this is a good
That is correct, under this proposal the chairs don't have voting
responsibilities in the IAOC. And while I argue that the chairs can 'steer' as
ex-officio I understand that is something you are either convinced off or not.
Also, the new section 2.3, which is incorrectly titled but presumably
is intended to be "IETF Trust membership" seems to me to be inconsistent
with the Trust Agreement. The Trust Agreement states that the Eligible Persons
(to become Trustees) are each "a then-current member of the IAOC, duly appointed
and in good standing in accordance with the procedures of the IAOC established
pursuant to IETF document BCP 101 [as amended]". That doesn't exclude the
non-voting members of the IAOC, which is why the IAD is already a Trustee.
To change this, the Trust would have to change the Trust Agreement. To be clear,
I'm not saying this can't be done, but it can't be ignored either.
Yes, it is incorrectly titled.
As far as I understand the trust agreement the voting members and the IAD are
members of the trust. If the 'chairs' are non-voting members of the IAOC then
the idea is that they would not be trustees and a modification of the trust
agreement is not needed. That can be clarified.
If the chairs should be trustees (are you arguing that?) then I agree, a trust
agreement modification is needed.
Olaf M. Kolkman NLnet Labs
Ietf mailing list
Yours to discover."
Ietf mailing list