|
Re: Edits - #819 - Elwyn's editorials
2005-01-25 06:39:23
At 17:42 24/01/2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
There has apparently been no comments on these.... I thought I'd make a
pass...
Some thoughts:
S1, para 3: s/Such support includes/The support for current work includes/
this works either way for me - "current" seems to say "the next sentences
describe what is currently done, and the future may be different".
Suggest that we accept the edit.
Fine.
S1, Para 3:
The IASA is also ultimately responsible for the financial
activities associated with IETF administrative support such as
collecting IETF meeting fees, paying invoices, managing budgets and
financial accounts, and so forth.
Given that IETF/IASA is operating as some sort of subsidiary of ISOC, I'm
not sure that IASA can be ultimately responsible for
anything. s/ultimately/day-to-day/ or some such?
I'd go for just deleting "ultimately". The work may be contracted out, so
it's not day-to-day, but "ultimately" is just trouble.
Also fine.
S1, para 4: 'and met well' ? Nice thought but what does it *actually*
mean?
That we (the IETF) like the result?
I would like this to stay, undefined as it is.
The only thing I would say here is that, whilst the IASA and the IAD are to
be the IETF's servants (with will expressed by the IAOC in the normal
course of events), asking them to 'meet something well' is in a sense
asking them to second guess what we really meant rather than spelling it
out properly in the first place. Are we really asking for them to be
proactive rather totally reactive? This is usually what is meant when
somebody gets an 'exceed' on their performance assessment: So why don't we
spell it out.. make it quite clear that we are not after a passive servant
but an organisation that thinks for itself to produce the best possible
solution within the various constraints the IAD and IASA should be
encouraged to advise the IETF/IAOC on best options for implementation and
suggest ways in which processes could be improved.
S2.2: I know that US data protection laws and practices are not as well
developed as European ones, but I think there ought to be some duty to
protect the data and generate a suitable privacy policy, as well as keep
it available. (Item 7).
I think there should be - but don't see a good way of capturing it here.
I'd let it go for now and try to instruct the IASA later....
I' am happy with the words negotiated between Harald and Brian.
S2.2: Should the IASA be responsible for ensuring that the IETF
(especially if it is run as a subsidiary) fulfils its legal and
regulatory
responsibilities? It certainly needs to maintain any records that might
be needed for such purposes beyond just financial matters. I am not
expert in US company law but I am sure there must be *some* things they
would need to do.
Hm. Yes. It needs to deal with subpoenas and other irritations, for instance.
But this is a bit like saying "you are responsible for staying wet while
in water"..... I can't think of text at the moment....
Responsibilities of the IAD: 'Working with ISOC to maintain records needed
to fulfil the IETF's legal and regulatory duties, and providing information
to allow IETF to respond in a timely fashion to any legal or regulatory
requests.'
S3.1, para 3: This para states that signing powers will be delegated to
the IAD up to some specified limit. Who has signing powers beyond this?
This is just part of a much wider point about the actual powers of the
IETF/IAOC and the relationship with ISOC which I will discuss at the end
of these notes.
The text at the moment doesn't say exactly that - it says that "we'll work
it out"...... I don't know what more it CAN say....
Can you make it clear that IAOC has a role in authorizing larger payments
even if they actually have to be signed by ISOC president or whatever?
S3.1: I think this whole section should be much clearer about exactly
what powers are delegated to the IAD to make commitments, as opposed to
just negotiating: ISOC executes the contracts but the IAD will want to
know that ISOC is a rubber stamp/back stop for this process and is not
going to start second guessing him if he operates within the parameters
set for him. This is related to the long discussion on Issue 739. There
is also the potential for dispute between IAOC and IAD/ISOC which is not
really addressed.
Not sure what to add here, if anything - this will have to be worked out
in practical terms, and the IAOC will have to work out the details in
cooperation with the ISOC President.
Should there be specific language?
The problem I saw was that the words seemed to be a little unclear as to
whether the IAD could actually authorise contracts as well as negotiate
them: does the signing power apply only to signing checks or also to
signing contracts on behalf of ISOC?
s3.4: It would be nice to see a requirement that minutes were published
in a set period or at least in a timely fashion after meetings, rather
than just regularly.
Suggest s/regularly/in a timely fashion/. Easy change....
Good.
s4:
While there are no hard rules regarding how the IAB and the IESG
should select members of the IAOC, such appointees need not be
current IAB or IESG members (and probably should not be, if only to
avoid overloading the existing leadership). The IAB and IESG should
choose people with some knowledge of contracts and financial
procedures, who are familiar with the administrative support needs of
the IAB, the IESG, or the IETF standards process. The IAB and IESG
should follow a fairly open process for these selections, perhaps
with an open call for nominations or a period of public comment on
the candidates. The procedure for IAB selection of ISOC Board of
Trustees [RFC3677] might be a good model for how this could work.
After the IETF gains some experience with IAOC selection, these
selection mechanisms should be documented more formally.
Given the comments in S3, para 1, should the appointees by 'regular
members' of the IETF (i.e., people with a good track record of attending
IETF meetings) as with NomCom members are their appointees?
Actually previous discussion indicates that we do NOT want to impose such
a requirement - the people who know how to supervise a business construct
like IASA are not the same people who know how to design an efficient
transport protocol. So we want to have this open for "getting the right
people", I think.
I would agree that the regular attendees are not necessarily the right
candidates but S3 para 1 seems to imply they ought to be, so you may want
to emphasise this greater freedom of action (and any limits on it) in S4.
Makes sense?
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
|
|