Re: Revised IAOC Administrative Procedures draft

I've generally stayed out of this discussion, but let me offer a word  
of support to Bob, et al re maintaining some flexibility.  There are  
two very strong protections already in place in this system.  First,  
the operation of the IAOC -- and IASA -- are fully documented and  
visible.  If the IAOC does something inappropriate, it will become  
visible and everyone will learn from it. Second, bills get paid  
through ISOC's normal processes.  ISOC has a set of controls in place  
to document expenses and make sure they follow the expected set of  
rules.  In addition to these strong protections, a questionable  
expenditure, even if it's several thousand dollars, isn't going to go  
irreparable harm to the IETF or ISOC.  Trying to prescribe a strict  
set of rules in addition to these protections is counterproductive and  
may remove flexibility that's needed for the benefit of the IETF at  
some future time.
The IETF's success, and, indeed, the success of the whole Internet,  
has come from maximum flexibility and minimum a priori rules and  
permissions.  We can easily afford to wait for the IAOC to screw up in  
some egregious fashion before we have to draft and administer rules to  
prevent subsequent abuses.  In the meantime, let the IAOC do its job  
on behalf of the community.
Steve

Full disclosure: I was on the committee that formulated the IAOC and I  
served on the IAOC for a period of time.

On Sep 13, 2010, at 1:16 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:

> On Sep 13, 2010, at 12:39 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>
> > Several interesting responses, thanks.
> >
> > I agree that detailed rules would be onerous and unable to cope  
> > with the exceptional circumstances that the condition is intended  
> > to cover.
> > On the other hand BCP101 does seem to require some rules.
> >
> > Dave said:
> >
> > > There are enough hassles for the IAOC tasks; let's wait to impose  
> > > stricter rules until we see clear evidence they are needed.
> > OK, I think that provides a way forward. Let's put in place a  
> > mechanisms that allows the flexibility (i.e., not change to the  
> > "under exceptional circumstances" and "with agreement of the IAOC  
> > chair or the IAOC"), but remove the risk of surprise by inserting  
> > "with prior agreement",
> I am not sure that the prior agreement is a good idea. What may  
> trigger this is something like
> IAOC member shows up for IAOC event at X, finds that the room  
> reservation (or breakfast or projector or ...) has been canceled (or  
> is for the wrong date or ...) and that this problem can be fixed if  
> they put down a payment immediately. Most of the rest of the IAOC is  
> in transit, and prior agreement in terms of a vote cannot possibly  
> be obtained until it may be too late. The missing item in the normal  
> course of events would be paid for out of the IASA budget.
> If I were to be placed in that situation, I would go ahead, put the  
> money down, and hope to be reimbursed, prior authorization or no.
>
> > and supply a way of determining whether stricter rules are needed  
> > by requiring "annual reporting of expenses paid".
> I have no problem with that. As a suggestion, let's leave the text  
> alone, and add
> Any reimbursement of expenses to IAOC members for IAOC expenses will  
> be reported in the minutes and in the annual reports by the IAOC  
> Chair.
> (Such reports are required, and have been given in plenary.)
>
> Marshall
>
>
> Marshall
>
>
> > Cheers,
> > Adrian
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf mailing list
> > Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf