I actually think everybody is in agreement. The ceo definitely
does the budget. There is no doubt about it. And, the paragraph
you quoted was actually one that is fine as is.
But, there are a few places in section 3, as Bernard pointed out,
that we're making some unnecessary distinctions between iaoc
and iad.
There is a board, which is responsible for iaoc. It has the
"buck stops here responsibility" on how the iasa operates.
The iad is the officer of the activity/business/entity and
carries out the policy as an executive, as well as providing
the "staff support" that the board needs to make decisions.
I think everybody agrees on that.
All I think Bernard is objecting to is some sloppy draftsmanship.
Why don't we let Bert/Rob try and clean that up in their next
draft? I know they've got this section down as an issue.
I suspect they can clear this section up with a little surgery.
Carl
it doesn't make sense to me..... but then the corporate boards I have
served on (Unicode Consortium and .no registry) seem to function very much
in the mode of "oversight and strategy direction" - it would be bizarre for
either of those boards to attempt to create a budget; in both
organizations, that's the administration's job, as represented by the CEO -
including answering all the hard questions about why the budget looks that
way, and modifying the budget based on feedback from the board on what
strategy it wants supported.
Quoting from section 3:
The IASA will initially consist of a single full-time ISOC employee,
the IETF Administrative Director (IAD), who will be an officer
entitled to act on behalf of the IASA at the direction of the IAOC.
The IAD is likely to draw on financial, legal and administrative
support furnished by ISOC support staff or consultants. Allocation
of costs for ISOC support staff and consultants will be based on an
actual expenses or on some other allocation model determined by
consultation between the IAOC and ISOC.
I think that is the right division of labour (the IASA *does* the work, the
IAOC *oversees* the work, and the IAOC is *not* part of IASA).
So any power that implies *doing*, including chartering committes that help
define or refine the support for the IETF, should be given to the IAD, not
to the IAOC. Any committee that does *oversight* (for instance an audit
committee) should be chartered by the IAOC.
Your mileage may vary.
Harald
--On 24. november 2004 16:17 -0800 Bernard Aboba
<aboba(_at_)internaut(_dot_)com>
wrote:
It seems to me that in most of section 3 where it says the
"IAD shall," you could probably simply change that to the
"IAOC shall." For example:
"The IAD may constitute special-purpose, chartered committees to bring
in expertise (on topics such as finance, IETF process, or tools), to
engage
This simply becomes "The IAOC may constitute ..."
Does that make sense or are people envisioning the "Office
of the IAD" having some more distinct powers and responsibilities
rather than simply reporting to the board?
Yes, this makes sense to me.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf