Scott,
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
After the BCP has the full support and approval of the IETF community,
the IASA and IAOC will be formed, and it will be part of the ISOC
organization. I'm concerned that what you're suggesting here is just
not good organizational practice. At the end of the day, functional
differentiation is necessary. The IAOC and IASA have a task: the work
needed for IETF operations to be accomplished, which include the
full review and decision-making on RFPs at each cycle. The ISOC "folks"
(BoT) has its own manifold tasks. IAOC and IASA do not perform the ISOC BoT's
tasks, and the ISOC BoT should not peform IAOC/IASA tasks. It's not a
matter of ruling out informal discussions, but of making
organizational clarity. We're working toward a shared specification
that the ISOC President/CEO and BoT representatives have voting
representation in the RFP decisions, and that is the organizational
structure. Saying that there doesn't need to be an bright line, that
there doesn't need to be functional differentiation, is contrary to
our goals in working on all this structure in the first place.
Allison
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf