This seems reasonable to me.
John L.
John Klensin suggested the following text for the first sentence, and
Scott Bradner supported the idea:
In principle, IETF administrative functions should be
outsourced. Decisions to perform specific functions
"in-house" should be explicitly justified by the IAOC
and restricted to the minimum staff required, with these
decisions and staffing reviewed by the IAOC on a regular
basis and against a "zero base" assumption.
We have to adjust the second sentence (referring to "such contracts"
would become ambiguous), so the total paragraph becomes:
In principle, IETF administrative functions should be
outsourced. Decisions to perform specific functions
"in-house" should be explicitly justified by the IAOC
and restricted to the minimum staff required, with these
decisions and staffing reviewed by the IAOC on a regular
basis and against a "zero base" assumption.
The IAD is responsible for negotiating and maintaining outsourcing
contracts, as well as providing any coordination necessary to make
sure the IETF administrative support functions are covered properly.
The IAOC is accountable for the structure of the IASA and thus
decides which functions are to be outsourced. All outsourcing must
be via well-defined contracts or equivalent instruments. Both
outsourced and in-house functions must be clearly specified and
documented with well-defined deliverables, service level agreements,
and transparent accounting for the cost of such functions.
Is that OK with everyone? Case closed?
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf