--On torsdag, november 25, 2004 08:39:48 -0800 Bernard Aboba
<aboba(_at_)internaut(_dot_)com> wrote:
Correct, Carl. The issue is oversight -- who leads the committees that
review the financial statements and the IAD performance. Allowing the IAD
to lead the review of his/her own performance does not make sense.
And I don't think anyone expected that. As I said before - IAOC has to make
committees that do review; IAD should make committees that perform actions.
And I'd also argue that while it is the IAD's job to come up with the
budget, that does not happen in a vaccuum -- the ISOC, IAOC and IETF
community need to provide input into the service level that is expected,
and those changes need to be explicit. That was, I think, Bob Kahn's
point at the plenary.
Agreed - and I do think the "vacuum" is a red herring (or bad drafting).
Again, nobody wants that.
Rather than focussing on timelines (which after all, may change), I'd like
to see more discussion of the expected working relationship. I don't
think we want the "throw it over the wall" process that seems to be
implied.
Send text.....
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf