On 2/15/2016 7:05 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
The question is, is the IETF Chair in the IAOC as "IETF Chair",
"IESG Chair", or both? John's analysis is quite right as far as the
IESG Chair is concerned. For example, consider the IAOC's job of
overseeing the IAD's job of ensuring that tools such as the tracker
are in good shape. IESG input there is essential, but it could be
conveyed by any Area Director. However, for some other matters,
especially policy matters handled by the Trust, the IESG has no
special role - they are community matters, where ultimately it's
the IETF Chair who calls consensus.
So I see a case for the IETF Chair being in the IAOC ex officio as
today, and that is*orthogonal* to the question of an IESG liaison.
Hi Brian -
I think your analysis is pretty on target. Given the above and the
discussion on the IAB chair I would probably do this:
Have the IAOC consist of
o The IETF Chair (ex-officio)
o One member of the IESG selected by and from its membership for a 1 or
2 year term
o One member of the IAB selected by and from its membership for a 1 or 2
year term
o One member of the ISOC BOT selected by and from its membership for a
minimum 2 year term with an option to extend year to year.
o Four members selected by the Nomcom for 2 year terms - confirmed by
both the IAB and IESG (alternately 3 or 6 members with three year terms)
o The ISOC BOT Chair and the IAB Chair as observers if they aren't
otherwise appointed.
The term lengths for the IAB and IESG would be variable to allow
different "entering classes" to serve on the IAOC. A member would
expected to serve at least two years and would be automatically
reappointed to the IAOC for an additional year if they are re-upped to
the IAB or IESG and have served less than two years. After that,
their appointing organization can continue them year to year as long as
they retain their slot on the IESG or IAB.
The term lengths for the ISOC BOT are to deal with their three year term
length - the BOT would have to appoint someone that has at least two
years left on their ISOC BOT term, but could then extend their
appointment by a year at a time. That gives the IAOC some stability in
ISOC participation.
The NOMCOM selected members are currently confirmed by the IESG. If we
make the above changes, then we require anyone appointed by the Nomcom
to be acceptable to both the IAB and IESG, but we take away the IAB and
IESG's current appointment power for the two other at large members.
Given that the IAB, IESG, ISOC and Nomcom are all pulling candidates
from mostly the same pool, it does not make a lot of sense to have 4
different groups appointing at-large members.
The benefit of staying with the current ex-officio model is to not have
to figure out how to deal with varying term lengths amongst the
ex-officio replacements. But, if you change the model, then you have to
figure out how to give the IAOC *at least* the same level of stability
that it currently has in membership terms.