Hi Jari - See below.
On 2/17/2016 4:26 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
There may be a reason from the IAOC's point of view to require the ISOC
president in the
ISOC slot, but then again there may not - I'd like to hear from them on this
point.
Well, I don't think that it's really the IAOC's call.
(Background for others - the IAOC has ISOC CEO as an ex officio member in the
board, but ISOC also names one of the other members.)
The member they name is an at-large member that does not, per the IAOC
charter, represent the ISOC per se. The ISOC BOT names this member.
I wanted to provide my opinion.
For what it is worth, while the CEO hopefully does not spent a huge amount of
time with various IAOC detail issues, I have found the presence of the CEO
extremely helpful on a number of occasions. There are some big topics where it
has been very important for her (or them) to be in the team. IETF and ISOC are
bound together from the administrative and financial perspective, and there are
some topics where the leadership just has to be involved.
Now, I am not saying that the ex officio slot has to be filled by the CEO. And
different CEOs might have different skill sets and focus areas, and there are other
arrangements with respect to the role in the IAOC. Other people, for instance, the
CTO, could and have filled in many situations. But what I am saying is that there are
some topics where there CEO pretty much has to be involved, either as part of the team
or otherwise, because they are core questions not just to us but also for ISOC in
their role. How is financing of the IETF going to evolve in the future? What ISOC
share of IETF’s budget is feasible? Are you going to back us up if X happens?
How do we approach a large sponsorship discussion? These are all questions that we
have to deal with.
Jari
Hi Jari -
Your post helped me figure out what questions (I think) should be asked:
1) Who gets to/needs to participate in the business of the IAOC? (Who
gets a voice?)
2) Who gets to vote on the business of the IAOC? (and if organizational,
how many votes?)
3) How do we (or who get's to ) decide if (1) and (2) have to be the
same person for any given organization?
(1) and (2) need not necessarily be the same person as you've indicated,
but are currently for the IAB, IESG/IETF and IAOC.
* I think Brian made a good case for the IETF chair and that the chair
needs to be involved in pretty much all of the decisions of the IAOC.
* I think Andrew has made a case that the IAB has a somewhat less
participatory need and that it ties more with specific relatively
short term issues (e.g. RFC editor/IANA transition) than other
things in their wheelhouse.
* I think you've (Jari) made a good case that the ISOC (and
specifically the ISOC CEO) has a need to be involved in decisions
that affect the relationship between the IETF and the ISOC, but a
lesser interest in the day to day issues of the IAOC.
* No one has made a good case for the three organizations (vice having
the Nomcom do it) to continue to appoint additional at-large members
and there are good reasons (redundant and conflicting processes
drawing from the same pool of volunteers) not to continue the practice.
With respect to the IAB, the above bullet point tries to differentiate
between things that they'd like to have a say in and things that are
related directly to the IAB's chartered responsibilities.
At this point, I don't know what the above could mean for changes with
the IAOC composition and voting structre- but I've made a few
suggestions. I do believe that considering changes to IAB
participation in isolation as Ted Hardie's draft wants to do is probably
not the right approach.
I can live with the status quo which is why I didn't provide my own
draft. But, if we're going to change anything on the IAOC, I believe we
should review all of the going in assumptions and original biases and
see if they still hold before mucking with the structure piecemeal.
Later, Mike