While I find scenario O to be preferable amongst the alternatives so far
suggested, I find
it lacking in a few areas that I would like to see addressed before I give it
support.
The document frequently says that "IAOC will be directly accountable to the IETF
community," but in my quick reading of the document I see nothing that
quantifies or
qualifies this accountability in terms of day-to-day process or long-term
process.
I would suggest that an increased sense of ownership can be given to the IETF
community by
increasing the proportion of of IAOC members selected by NomCom. 4 out of 9
seems
preferable to the current 2 out of 7.
May be I missed something along the way, but was there an initial definition of
"administrative support"?
It seems to me that we are missing a statement about reporting lines and
communication
lines. At the moment it is well-known that one of the issues is that it is at
times hard
or impossible for an IETF participant or WG chair to get good responsiveness
from the
secretariat. While scenario O handles this as a macro issue (repeated problems
can be
drawn to the attention of the IAOC who will kick where appropriate) there is no
description of the day-to-day process. Although the details of this process may
be left
fot IAOC and IASA to sort out (and may be tuned over the years), I think we
need to start
with some assumed lines.
As a small nit: "The members of the IAOC will typically serve two year terms"
is followed
by text that describes how 3 out of 7 voting members serve one year terms.
Thanks,
Adrian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf