ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: AdminRest: New version of IASA BCP document available

2004-11-20 09:40:24
sob(_at_)harvard(_dot_)edu (scott bradner) writes:
one example from section 3.1 -
   Although the approval of the ISOC President/CEO or ISOC Board of
   Trustees may be required for some contracts, their review should be
   limited to protecting ISOC's liabilities and financial stability.

This says that the ISOC president (or accountant or lawyer) is not
permitted to tell the IAD that they know that a proposed contractor is a
dead beat and never gets anything done - or that they spotted a flaw in
the bid that could double the cost - that seems very silly indeed - I
see no reason that the ISOC folk can not be full partners in evaluation
processes with the IAD (and IAOC) making the final decisions - anything
less is willfully putting the IAD, IAOC and ISOC in a non optimum place.
I understand that the general desire is for the IAD to operate without
nitpicking from the ISOC folk but an bright line of separate thinking
zones is far from the best way to do that

I think the key point here is to distinguish the kinds of comments
ISOC can make--which I agree should be relatively unconstrained
from the grounds on which they can refuse to approve, which
should be tightly constrained. I think this can be easily
solved by slightly wordsmithing the last sentence, to read:

     approval may not be denied for any reason other than
     protecting ISOC's liabilities and financial stability.

I think that my main point was not clear enough - the current
wording implies that ISOC folk (accountant, President/CEO, lawyer,
etc - but not BoT) are not permitted be part of the RFP response review 
process and are not primitted to warn the IAD and IAOC that the contractor
they want to sign up has a bad track record or that the proposed
contract itself has a significant legal flaw - this seems basically
broken to me

I was NOT addressing the question that ekr's proposed
wording talks to  (if the ISOC has to agree to a contract that the
IAD/IAOC have recommended )

I was trying to address the RFP response review phase of the process 
speciifcally I think that the ISOC staff & President/CEO need to be
in the review loop.  I think the document must not exclude that
possibility.

ekr's suggested wording is fine with one (to me important) addition -
the proposed contract needs to fit within the agreed-to budget

Scott

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf