Comments in line below...
On Jun 14, 2005, at 5:31 AM, Geoff Huston wrote:
It seems to me that what would be required to do so would be three
statements:
ISOC's appointees do not represent ISOC, in the same way that IAB
and IESG appointees do not represent the IAB or IESG. They serve
the entire community.
Nomcom appointees do not represent a subclass of all IETF
participants, in the same way that IAB and IESG appointees do not
represent the IAB or IESG. They serve the entire community.
Since the IAOC manages the relationship between ISOC and the IETF,
direct understanding of both IETF and ISOC is of value in all
appointees.
Is there any reason the document shouldn't say that?
As one of the editors of this document I would note the following
in response to your suggestions, by way of explanation as to why
these statements are not in this draft:
- This document is a document that is limited to the definition of
a procedure for the IAB and IESG to follow. It deliberately does
not extend further than that quite limited brief, and did not
intend to describe the accountabilities of the individuals that are
selected through the application of this process.
Yes, this document, as written, is specifically limited to the
definition of a procedure for the IAB and IESG to follow. The
question is whether to expand its scope and cover the ISOC and Nomcom
appointments as well. Are the criteria for selection the same or
different? In the spirit of establishing a cooperative framework,
the suggestion on the table is to harmonize the criteria and create
one document.
This is only of medium importance. If the answer is no, the IAB and
IESG want one document for their two appointments but don't want to
enlarge it to cover the others, then ISOC can write its own and
presumably someone will write one for the Nomcom appointments.
- More generally, this document does not define the role or
accountabilities of the IAOC. This more general objective is part
of the intention of RFC 4071. Accountabilities of IAOC members are
described in section 3.3 of that document, and it is repeated again
in section 4 of that document. In reading that and comparing it to
the three statements above its my personal view that this covers
the first two of the statements proposed above.
- It is my view that the third statement above is beyond the scope
of this draft. From my understanding of the structure we (IETF and
ISOC) are in, I would not share your view that the "IAOC manages
the relationship between ISOC and the IETF". To my mind the IAOC
manages one operational aspect of this relationship, but as far as
I can tell there's more to the relationship than just the IAOC.
Ah, yes. There are the pre-existing arrangements where ISOC is in
the loop to approve the Nomcom's selection of IAB members, ISOC has a
liaison to the Nomcom, and the IETF appoints members to the ISOC
board. None of these are intended to be covered by this document, so
I agree we need to work on the wording a bit.
However, I would also note that this is an IAB and IESG document,
and if the IAB and IESG want these statements edited into the
draft, then, of course, its their call.
regards,
Geoff
Steve
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf