Hi Olaf,
I went through the draft just now, and I have some quite strong feelings
about it. I'm sorry I'm sending my comments so late in the game.
A disclaimer first: I was the chairman of the IAOC some years back, but I
haven't been actively involved with IETF administration after that.
Therefore, my reactions are based on the history, and I don't necessarily
have the up-to-date information of today, anymore.
Anyways, I thank Olaf of bringing up this real problem: the IAOC is a lot
of work measured in time, and effort. At least, when I was there, I think
it was too much work for people who were already busy in so many other
ways.
However, I think the solution is a bit "menemistä perse edellä puuhun" (==
putting the cart before the horse): The IAOC should be a _strategic_ body
that gives a direction for the administration of the IETF. Basically IAOC
is the closest you have to the board of the IETF (financial management,
asset management, management of the operations). Therefore, by design, you
have the stakeholders represented in the body (the main chairs, the
president and CEO of ISOC).
The Trust on the other hand is everything the IETF has (as ownership - the
biggest asset the IETF has is of course the community). It owns the fruits
of the labour of the whole community - the intellectual property that the
community creates. I think it is very clear that the main stakeholders
(the I* chairs) and the main responsible for the administrator of the
trust (the president/CEO of ISOC) have to be trustees and show ownership
of the trust - you just cannot delegate that.
Like said, I understand the problem: The IAOC is a lot of work for people
who already have a lot to do. However, I think that problem should be
managed without reducing the oversight of the IETF leadership over the
IETF financials, assents, and other important activities.
Perhaps, the IAOC should think how to reorganize, and strengthen the
operational part of the IETF to reduce the burden of the IAOC. This might
mean increasing the level of investment to the operations of the IETF to
make sure the IAOC members do not have to be part of the operational
stuff, but can concentrate on making just the strategic decisions and
doing the oversight.
If I would have to summarize this all into one sentence: The workload
problem is a problem only the IAOC can fix, and cannot be done by
reorganizing the IAOC.
Sorry for the long e-mai.
Cheers,
Jonne.
--
Jonne Soininen
Renesas Mobile
Tel: +358 40 527 4634
E-mail: jonne(_dot_)soininen(_at_)renesasmobile(_dot_)com
On 9/19/11 11:05 AM, "Olaf Kolkman" <olaf(_at_)NLnetLabs(_dot_)nl> wrote:
Brian,
So far you are the only person that has responded with substance. Other
feedback was promised but never arrived. I hope to rev this document
shortly so that we can finalize it before the Taiwan meeting.
I wrote:
Based on the discussion I've updated the draft:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kolkman-iasa-ex-officio-membership
Essentially I incorporated Dave Crocker's proposal to
1) replace the 'chairs' by voting members appointed by the respective
bodies.
2) allow the chairs to participate in all meetings and provide
(unsolicited) advice.
I believe that allows chairs to exercise their responsibilities of
keeping a coherent perspective of the organization an allow them to
steer outcomes if needed, but doesn't require the day-to-day
involvement that is required from a diligent voting member.
You responded:
And it therefore removes the two Chairs' shared responsibility for
decisions of
the IAOC and the IETF Trust. I am still far from convinced that this is
a good
thing.
That is correct, under this proposal the chairs don't have voting
responsibilities in the IAOC. And while I argue that the chairs can
'steer' as ex-officio I understand that is something you are either
convinced off or not.
Also, the new section 2.3, which is incorrectly titled but presumably
is intended to be "IETF Trust membership" seems to me to be inconsistent
with the Trust Agreement. The Trust Agreement states that the Eligible
Persons
(to become Trustees) are each "a then-current member of the IAOC, duly
appointed
and in good standing in accordance with the procedures of the IAOC
established
pursuant to IETF document BCP 101 [as amended]". That doesn't exclude
the
non-voting members of the IAOC, which is why the IAD is already a
Trustee.
To change this, the Trust would have to change the Trust Agreement. To
be clear,
I'm not saying this can't be done, but it can't be ignored either.
Yes, it is incorrectly titled.
As far as I understand the trust agreement the voting members and the IAD
are members of the trust. If the 'chairs' are non-voting members of the
IAOC then the idea is that they would not be trustees and a modification
of the trust agreement is not needed. That can be clarified.
If the chairs should be trustees (are you arguing that?) then I agree, a
trust agreement modification is needed.
--Olaf
________________________________________________________
Olaf M. Kolkman NLnet Labs
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/
_______________________________________________
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