Inline
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]On Behalf Of
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 18:42
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Edits - #819 - Elwyn's editorials
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.
I can certainly make the change.
But in my ears, the current text sounds much better.
In fact I am not sure that we mean just "current" but also
possible "future" work.
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.
I remember that when we discussed this, the idea we wanted to express is
that the IAD does the day-to-day work (or outsources it) but that
IASA has the ultimate responsibility. That is, IASA must make sure
things happen, but can outsource or assign to a specific person.
So again... I am not sure we want to make any change.
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.
I like it to stay the way it is too
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....
Per Brians and Haralds email exchange I now have text for that
(see my other email).
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....
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....
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?
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....
Makes sense. Change applied to my edit buffer
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 agree with Harald, so I support a "no change" for this item
Bert
Makes sense?
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf