ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Issue #727: Section 2.2, 4, & 7 - Miscellaneous & editorial [was : Last Call Comments on draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-02.txt]

2004-12-26 23:08:42
At 05:36 27/12/2004, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, 27 December, 2004 03:00 +0100 "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin"
<jefsey(_at_)jefsey(_dot_)com> wrote:

> At last ... This is why the ISOC scheme cannot work. One
> cannot serve two masters. This rises the question of who has
> the lead over the Internet R&D (a part from the users).

No, Jefsey, as is often the case, I can't fathom how your
conclusions relate to what has been said.

As usual you see the things with your internal IAB/IETF culture.
When you rise a problem you very often presuppose that this
culture is right. So you have real difficulty to understand that as
an IAB/IETF customer I first consider if the problem does not
root in that very culture, what is IMHO often the case.

Since I know you are quite concerned by multilingualism may
be will you understand this with the example of the RFC 3869.
It is a pure IAB product calling for Govs funding, yet not even
quoting multlingualism while is is the key Govs priority.

First, the comment
has nothing to do with "the ISOC scheme", it is strictly a
matter of IETF-IASA leadership relationships and would exist no
matter what relationship the IASA has to ISOC.

Again, you only consider your own concerns - and I wander
what you may think I refer to??? When I say "ISOC scheme"
I do not discuss the way you want the IETF to relate with ISOC,
but the very choice of using ISOC to host the IASA.

As long as IETF is not incorporated with its own BoD the
administrative tasks will relate with two bosses and will be
hosted by a third one. I succeeded for years to be exactly
in that situation: believe me this gives a total autonomy. I
only feared first for my salary rises but I soon discovered
that this too was an auction :-)

Second, this
has very little, if anything, to do with "Internet R&D"
leadership, at least as I understand those terms: insofar as
anyone in the IETF-linked structures have any leadership role
there, it is clearly the IAB and not either the standards
functions of the IETF or any administrative body.

Never considered that this might be a problem?

And, again,
this is independent of any links to ISOC or the absence of them.
And...

> 1. may be it is the time to remember the IRTF and its Chair:
> this would transform a praxis into a triumvirate.

Except that there is no ambiguity of relationships with the IRTF
leadership, and it was that ambiguity which Margaret and I were
addressing.  The IRTF Chair is appointed by the IAB and
essentially serves at the IAB's pleasure.

This is exactly what, as an IETF/IAB/IRTF customer
I think "urgent" to reconsider for a long ....

> 2. rather then creating a dominance, why not to organize a
> conflict arbitration, for example by your ICANN BoD position.
> If there is a conflict, you are the first embarrassed.

First, because ICANN has absolutely nothing to do with this and
the only value of dragging them into it would be to add
considerable confusion about roles and relationships.

You see the things again from your IAB/IETF point of view. ICANN has nothing to do with this. What has to do is that this position is the only IAB/IETF "liaison" with the external world. There is not even an IAB/IETF member at the WGIG.

To put
it mildly, I don't favor such confusion.  You may, of course,
disagree.  Second, my "ICANN BoD position" is a liaison one
only.

Yes. And if there is an internal conflict there will be a long internal delay with an e-mailing logorhea as only consequence. You will be the only one to have to document it outside and this way may be to see it in a different perspective, with probably other kinds of advices. The "liaison" being someone usually chosen for his experience, common sense and IAB/IETF good knowledge and trust, it could be the best internal and external facilitator we could have in case of difficulties. The experience of your current tenure shows it.

I'm appointed by the IAB, serve at their pleasure, and
feel obligated to follow any instructions I get from them when I
am acting in that capacity.  So injecting me, or future
occupants of that role, into this situation would essentially
just give the IAB the controlling vote.

Here, I do not understand. You say IAB as the leadership, anyway.
The concern you rise and I share is not that at the end of the day non one decides, but that it takes time and hurts. In what I suggest there is no vote but arbitration and reasonable advices. In a less conflicting situation due to the restored weight
of IRTF.

It would not provide a
basis for impartial arbitration, but would, in your language,
just be a different way to "create a dominance".

You will not change that someone has eventually to take a decision. We only want to avoid conflicts. There only a need for decision facilitation. Simplest is an IETF BoD, smoother an experienced and open minded selected facilitator.

BTW I do not understand why you rise the question if you think the IAB Chair has the con.
Happy Xmas.
jfc




    john



> At 16:22 26/12/2004, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>> --On Sunday, 26 December, 2004 08:35 -0500 Margaret Wasserman
>> <margaret(_at_)thingmagic(_dot_)com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>  >>  I'd remove everything after the comma.  There is no
>> >>>  >>  clear concept of what duties and responsibilities
>> >>>  >>  would normally be associated with such a position,
>> >>>  >>  and you have specific responsibilities and limits
>> >>>  >>  listed later.
>> >>>
>> >> No change made. It had quite some discussion during rev 01.
>> >> And we then seemed to have agreed (to me at least) on
>> >> taking the text from the IAB doc (RFC2850, sect 3.1) and
>> >> not fiddle with the words (as had been done earlier).
>> >> So after that earlier discussion on the text, I do not see
>> >> this as just an editorial change.
>> >
>> > I personally still object, as I don't (personally) have a
>> > clear concept of what duties and responsibilities would
>> > normally be associated with the role of IAOC Chair.  Would
>> > you consider this person to be a peer with the IETF Chair
>> > and the IAB Chair, for instance?
>>
>> Note, first, that we have never clarified whether the IETF
>> Chair and the IAB Chair are peers.  As a former IAB Chair, I
>> have an opinion on that subject, but it might differ from the
>> opinions (and certainly differs from some occasional
>> practices) of prior IETF Chairs.
>>
>> Speaking pragmatically and based on some experience with
>> general organizational behavior as well as that of the
>> IETF...  Not having this issue absolutely clear will, sooner
>> or later, lead to a power struggle of some flavor unless the
>> IAOC Chair rotates at a fairly high rate, i.e., the position
>> is clearly one of "chair of current meeting or teleconf", not
>> "Chair of the IAOC".
>>
>> And, while Carl will probably consider that potential power
>> struggle as an edge case too, I think the odds of it occurring
>> and consuming a lot of energy unnecessarily are high enough
>> that it would be good to get this clarified and to be sure
>> that the community is signed up on the clarification.
>>
>>    john






_______________________________________________
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