John,
Thanks for your note.
Russ,
Let me add a comment, noting that I'm currently on the ISOC board and
also on the IASA Transition Team. Since the Transition Team is
essentially an interim (and restricted) version of the IAOC, I'm roughly
in the position of being the ISOC-appointed person to the IAOC. (And I
don't know whether I'll be appointed to the IAOC when it's
constituted.) Also, I'm speaking as an individual, not representing the
rest of the ISOC board or anyone else.
With respect to your specific suggestions, my views are:
1. Yes, I agree it's desirable that the ISOC appointee should understand
the IETF, its standards process, and the appointee should also have a
general understanding of contracts and finances. I don't think we'd
want to cast this in concrete or use any present metric for measuring
these qualities, but I think these are, indeed, desirable qualities. I
would expect the ISOC board would likely take these into consideration.
2. I am of mixed minds with respect to whether the ISOC appointee should
or should not be a sitting ISOC board member. On the one hand, it's
important that the IASA operation get close attention and understanding
from the board. This will operate to the benefit of IASA. That
suggests a sitting board member may be more beneficial to the IASA than
someone who's not.
On the other hand, everyone is very busy, and getting someone from
outside the ISOC board is a way of increasing the labor pool, which is
always a good thing.
3. With respect to choosing someone through an open process, I think
we'll have to see how things work out. In the early days, the key thing
will be to get this operation up and going. We already have so many
levels of checks and balances and so many requirements for transparency
that I don't think it's essential to subject each piece of this
operation to yet another open process (YAOP). Open processes are
inherently slow and time-consuming. But lest I sound biased against it,
I don't have a problem with this sort of selection if others also want
to do it. But I think it falls squarely within the purview of the ISOC
board to decide this. The IAOC is already defined in terms of two seats
from each of three constituencies -- IESG, IAB and ISOC -- plus two more
chosen through a Nomcomm process, and I think it then falls within the
purview of each of those constituencies to make their appointments.
ISOC has just one appointment in addition to the pres/CEO, so there's
not much risk the appointee will unbalance things greatly. And, at
least as I assess things at this point, our biggest problem is finding
finding qualified people to fill the slot.
Steve
John C Klensin wrote:
Russ,
While this strikes me as mostly harmless, I don't think it
belongs in this document. The document itself is an IETF
document. It has gotten a good deal of useful input from ISOC
staff, Board members, and interested parties, and we expect ISOC
to sign off on it, but it remains an IETF document. We could
have done it in other ways --which might have been either better
or worse-- but we didn't.
I think it would be good if ISOC made its procedures public once
they decide on them. But, if the document starts dictating
procedures to them, it both constrains future evolution
unnecessarily and might constitute a barrier to getting swift
ISOC BoT signoff on the document as they debate their own
long-term procedures in this area.
Like others, I'm reconciled to the fact that we will probably
have to revise the BCP in a year or two. But I still think we
should keep any specifics and details that don't strictly need
to be in the document out of it, lest those force early
revisions over issues that are ultimately not important.
best,
john
--On Thursday, 03 February, 2005 11:23 -0500 Russ Housley
<housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com> wrote:
draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-06.txt
Structure of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA)
(BCP)
COMMENT
Section 4 includes a discussion of the process for
selection of
IAOC members. There is not a paragraph that covers the
member
appointed by the ISOC Board of Trustees. However, the
guidance
provided to the IAB and the IESG seems appropriate for the
ISOC
Board of Trustees as well:
- Appointees need not be current ISOC Board of Trustees
members
(and probably should not be);
- The ISOC Board of Trustees 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 ISOC Board of Trustees should follow a fairly open
process,
perhaps with an open call for nominations or a period
of public
comment on the candidates.
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf