Subject: Consensus? #771 Powers of the Chair of the IAOC

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 14:29:46 +0100

[yes, it's back to that grind again]

(This issue has been split from #727 in the issue tracker, because it's 
more specific than the original)

Current draft says:

   The members of the IAOC shall select one of its appointed voting
   members to serve as the chair of the IAOC, with all of the duties and
   responsibilities normally associated with such a position.  The term
   of the IAOC chair shall be one year, with no restriction on renewal.
   The chair of the IAOC may be removed at any time by the affirmative
   vote of two-thirds of the voting members of the IAOC, or as a result
   of his or her departure from the IAOC.

   The chair of the IAOC shall have the authority to manage the
   activities and meetings of the IAOC.  The IAOC Chair has no formal
   duty to represent the IAOC, except as directed by IAOC consensus.

The objections that have been made are of two kinds:

- There is no referent for the phrase "all of the duties and 
responsibilities normally associated with such a position". This language 
was lifted from RFC 2850 (IAB charter) - but there, the IAB chair had 
tradition as a guide.

- There is nothing clear about whether the IAOC chair is peer, superior or 
subordinate to the IAB chair or the IETF chair (or, for that matter, the 
ISOC President).

I don't think the last point should be addressed. This document lays out 
the specific mechanisms for appointment of the IAOC and its chair; it is 
clear that the document does not specify a hierarchy, but a network 
relationship.

To the first point, I think it's reasonable to remove the language that 
doesn't have a referent. It also seems to me that it fits better if 
rearranged a bit. What about this?

   The members of the IAOC shall select one of its appointed voting
   members to serve as the chair of the IAOC.

   The chair of the IAOC shall have the authority to manage the
   activities and meetings of the IAOC.

   The term
   of the IAOC chair shall be one year, with no restriction on renewal.
   The chair of the IAOC may be removed at any time by the affirmative
   vote of two-thirds of the voting members of the IAOC, or as a result
   of his or her departure from the IAOC.

I think that there is no need to specify at all what authorities the IAOC 
chair does NOT have - that list would, as Bert points out, be infinitely 
long.

Makes sense?

                       Harald

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 09:49:27 -0500

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> - There is nothing clear about whether the IAOC chair is peer, 
> superior or subordinate to the IAB chair or the IETF chair (or, for 
> that matter, the ISOC President).
>
> I don't think the last point should be addressed. This document lays 
> out the specific mechanisms for appointment of the IAOC and its chair; 
> it is clear that the document does not specify a hierarchy, but a 
> network relationship.

wfm ... The relationship of the chairs should be set by the relationship 
of the entities, so we should focus there. 

> To the first point, I think it's reasonable to remove the language 
> that doesn't have a referent. It also seems to me that it fits better 
> if rearranged a bit. What about this?
>

OK.

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:53:24 -0500

This proposal makes sense to me.

In particular, I agree with what the proposed text says and with what 
it doesn't say.

Margaret

>(This issue has been split from #727 in the issue tracker, because 
>it's more specific than the original)
>
>Current draft says:
>
>responsibilities normally associated with such a position". This 
>language was lifted from RFC 2850 (IAB charter) - but there, the IAB 
>chair had tradition as a guide.
>
>out the specific mechanisms for appointment of the IAOC and its 
>chair; it is clear that the document does not specify a hierarchy, 
>but a network relationship.
>
>that doesn't have a referent. It also seems to me that it fits 
>better if rearranged a bit. What about this?
>
>I think that there is no need to specify at all what authorities the 
>IAOC chair does NOT have - that list would, as Bert points out, be 
>infinitely long.
>
>Makes sense?
>
>                       Harald
>
>
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 16:43:11 +0100

ditto

    Brian

Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> In particular, I agree with what the proposed text says and with what it 
> doesn't say.
> 
> Margaret
>

---

From: EKR <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 08:09:59 -0800

>    of his or her departure from the IAOC.

I hate to be a horrible nitpicker here, but the departure from the
IAOC *shall* result in the chair being removed, right? I'm not sure
what the most elegant language change here is, but...

-Ekr

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 17:22:44 +0100

> what the most elegant language change here is, but...

I thought that was implied by "one of its appointed voting members"... it's 
possible to read it otherwise, but it makes my head hurt..

---

From: EKR <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 08:27:30 -0800

Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]> writes:

> I thought that was implied by "one of its appointed voting
> members"... it's possible to read it otherwise, but it makes my head
> hurt..

I thought so too, but then later you say that he/she "may be removed ..
or as a result of his or her departure"

-Ekr

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 17:35:36 +0100

> or as a result of his or her departure"

ah - now I see what you mean - the term "may" is ambiguous in context.
That was the part I didn't change, so I didn't read it as carefully....

>>>    of his or her departure from the IAOC.

we could say

   If the chair leaves the IAOC, or if two thirds of the voting IAOC members
   vote in favour of removing him, the term of the chair ends immediately.

Better?

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 16:19:54 -0500

--On Wednesday, 05 January, 2005 17:35 +0100 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <[email-masked]> wrote:

> So instead of:
> 
>>>>    The chair of the IAOC may be removed at any time by the
>>>>    affirmative vote of two-thirds of the voting members of
>>>>    the IAOC, or as a result of his or her departure from
>>>>    the IAOC.
> 
> we could say
> 

Harald,

Much better, but the language is uncomfortable.  Let me suggest
a different change that I think accomplishes the same thing,
with more clarity.

(i) Change the earlier sentences...

		The members of the IAOC shall select one of its
		appointed voting members to serve as the chair of the
		IAOC, with all of the duties and responsibilities
		normally associated with such a position.  The term of
		the IAOC chair shall be one year, with no restriction on
		renewal.

to read something more like

		The members of the IAOC shall select one of its
		appointed voting members to serve as the chair of the
		IAOC, with all of the duties and responsibilities
		normally associated with such a position.  The term of
		the IAOC chair shall be one year or for the duration of
		that individual's tenure on the IAOC, whichever is less.
		If reselected, an individual may serve multiple terms as
		chair.

("no restriction on renewal" is not wrong, it is just
uncomfortably worded, since there is some ambiguity about what
"renewal" means.)

Then, replace the removal sentence with: 

		Independent of the specific term, the Chair serves at
		the pleasure of the IAOC and may be removed from that
		position at any time by two thirds vote of the voting
		membership of the IAOC.

This avoids getting the term of office tangled up with an
exceptional removal procedure, which is more clear and, IMO,
just smoother text.   It also clarifies the minor point that the
IAOC doesn't need to give reasons and conduct an impeachment/
recall proceeding to remove a Chair, which is, I think from
other discussions, what we intend.  

This (and your suggested text, and the original) does leave
another loose end.  If the IAOC removes a Chair part-way through
that one-year term and then selects a replacement, the
replacement will (pick one)

	* Have a term equivalent to the remaining term of the
	individual being replaced
	
	* Have a term equivalent to the remaining term of the
	individual being replaced plus one year.
	
	* Have a one-year term.

This may not make a lot of difference except that the relevant
selecting body might be reluctant to retire a sitting Chair
(which might be either good or bad).   But it probably should be
clarified with an extra sentence here.

And, FWIW, I still hate "all of the duties and responsibilities
normally associated with such a position" -- it is just too
open-ended and an invitation to arguments about what those are.
IMO, we would be better off saying nothing, just stopping that
sentence after the second occurrence of "IAOC" or, better yet,
just saying "...to serve as its chair."

    john

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 23:14:41 +0100

Thanks for the language suggestion!

> just saying "...to serve as its chair."

That went away at the beginning of the thread....... didn't seem 
controversial, so didn't get quoted all the way down here..

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 14:21:23 +1100

>   vote in favour of removing him, the term of the chair ends immediately.

another nit:

s/removing him/removal/

Geoff