Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Process for the IAB and IESG selection of IAOC members' to BCP

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 04:29:53 -0700

The IAB+IESG selection draft is a good start at a selection procedure  
and set of guidelines. It does not address (and I suspect is not  
intended to address) how ISOC and nomcom appointees to the IAOC relate  
to the process or what their qualifications might be. I wonder,  
however, if that is a mistake. One could imagine ISOC coming up with a  
separate document, and the IETF coming up with a separate set of  
instructions for the nomcom, but I submit that such is not necessary if  
we can add few statements to this document.

To be in accordance with RFC 4071, the ISOC and nomcom appointees  
should be equally distanced from their constituencies - just as the IAB  
and IESG appointees do not represent the IAB or IESG but rather serve  
the entire community, the nomcom and ISOC appointees should serve the  
entire community. In ISOC's case, that is explicitly stated in RFC  
4071. In "not representing a constituency but serving the entire  
community", it seems also that an understanding of both ISOC and IETF  
are important - it is hard to manage a relationship that one does not  
understand. This document states that the IAB and IESG appointees

    ... are also expected to be able to understand the
    respective roles and responsibilities of the IETF and ISOC in this
    activity, and be able to articulate these roles within the IETF
    community.

It seems to me that this should also be true of nomcom and ISOC  
appointees, and by the way, they should be able to explain this to  
ISOC's other members (organizational, chapter, and individual) as well,  
and should understand the ramifications of IAOC choices for both IETF  
and ISOC.

It seems to me that what would be required to do so would be three  
statements:

    ISOC's appointees do not represent ISOC, in the same way that IAB
    and IESG appointees do not represent the IAB or IESG. They serve
    the entire community.

    Nomcom appointees do not represent a subclass of all IETF
    participants, in the same way that IAB and IESG appointees do not
    represent the IAB or IESG. They serve the entire community.

    Since the IAOC manages the relationship between ISOC and the IETF,
    direct understanding of both IETF and ISOC is of value in all
    appointees.

Is there any reason the document shouldn't say that?

On Jun 10, 2005, at 8:16 AM, The IESG wrote:
> The IESG has received a request from the IAB and the IESG to
> consider the following document:
>
> - 'Process for the IAB and IESG selection of IAOC members '
>    <draft-iab-iesg-iaoc-selection-01.txt> as a BCP
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action.  Please send any comments to the
> [email-masked] or [email-masked] mailing lists by 2005-07-07.
>
> The file can be obtained via
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iab-iesg-iaoc-selection 
> -01.txt
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>

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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 09:56:55 +0200

Fred,

I completely agree with the principles you are suggesting. But
I would be reluctant to embed statements about the ISOC appointees
in an IETF procedural BCP, because it would convolute two independent
organisation's procedures. But that's a personal opnion and I'd be
glad to hear other views.

I don't have that objection to mentioning the IETF Nomcom in
the proposed BCP, but BCP 101 is already quite specific:

    The two NomCom-appointed IAOC members are chosen using the procedures
    described in RFC 3777 [RFC3777].  For the initial IAOC selection, the
    IESG will provide the list of desired qualifications for these
    positions; in later years, the IAOC will provide this qualification
    list.  The IESG will serve as the confirming body for IAOC
    appointments by the NomCom.

I'm concerned that by adding the text you propose to this new BCP,
we are at risk of inconsistency with the above text, and of redundancy
with BCP 101, which already includes statements such as

    The IAOC is directly accountable to the IETF community for the
    performance of the IASA.
    ...
    Although the IAB, the IESG, and the ISOC Board of Trustees choose
    some members of the IAOC, those members do not directly represent the
    bodies that chose them.  All members of the IAOC are accountable
    directly to the IETF community.

Regards
     Brian

Fred Baker wrote:
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iab-iesg-iaoc-selection -01.txt
>>
>>

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 19:31:19 +1000

>Is there any reason the document shouldn't say that?

As one of the editors of this document I would note the following in 
response to your suggestions, by way of explanation as to why these 
statements are not in this draft:

- This document is a document that is limited to the definition of a 
procedure for the IAB and IESG to follow. It deliberately does not extend 
further than that quite limited brief, and did not intend to describe the 
accountabilities of the individuals that are selected through the 
application of this process.

- More generally, this document does not define the role or 
accountabilities of the IAOC. This more general objective is part of the 
intention of RFC 4071. Accountabilities of IAOC members are described in 
section 3.3 of that document, and it is repeated again in section 4 of that 
document. In reading that and comparing it to the three statements above 
its my personal view that this covers the first two of the statements 
proposed above.

- It is my view that the third statement above is beyond the scope of this 
draft. From my understanding of the structure we (IETF and ISOC) are in, I 
would not share your view that the "IAOC manages the relationship between 
ISOC and the IETF". To my mind the IAOC manages one operational aspect of 
this relationship, but as far as I can tell there's more to the 
relationship than just the IAOC.

However, I would also note that this is an IAB and IESG document, and if 
the IAB and IESG want these statements edited into the draft, then, of 
course, its their call.

regards,

    Geoff

`

---

From: Steve Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 15:13:37 -0400

Comments in line below...

On Jun 14, 2005, at 5:31 AM, Geoff Huston wrote:

> As one of the editors of this document I would note the following  
> in response to your suggestions, by way of explanation as to why  
> these statements are not in this draft:
>
> - This document is a document that is limited to the definition of  
> a procedure for the IAB and IESG to follow. It deliberately does  
> not extend further than that quite limited brief, and did not  
> intend to describe the accountabilities of the individuals that are  
> selected through the application of this process.

Yes, this document, as written, is specifically limited to the  
definition of a procedure for the IAB and IESG to follow.  The  
question is whether to expand its scope and cover the ISOC and Nomcom  
appointments as well.  Are the criteria for selection the same or  
different?  In the spirit of establishing a cooperative framework,  
the suggestion on the table is to harmonize the criteria and create  
one document.

This is only of medium importance.  If the answer is no, the IAB and  
IESG want one document for their two appointments but don't want to  
enlarge it to cover the others, then ISOC can write its own and  
presumably someone will write one for the Nomcom appointments.

> accountabilities of the IAOC. This more general objective is part  
> of the intention of RFC 4071. Accountabilities of IAOC members are  
> described in section 3.3 of that document, and it is repeated again  
> in section 4 of that document. In reading that and comparing it to  
> the three statements above its my personal view that this covers  
> the first two of the statements proposed above.
>
> - It is my view that the third statement above is beyond the scope  
> of this draft. From my understanding of the structure we (IETF and  
> ISOC) are in, I would not share your view that the "IAOC manages  
> the relationship between ISOC and the IETF". To my mind the IAOC  
> manages one operational aspect of this relationship, but as far as  
> I can tell there's more to the relationship than just the IAOC.

Ah, yes.  There are the pre-existing arrangements where ISOC is in  
the loop to approve the Nomcom's selection of IAB members, ISOC has a  
liaison to the Nomcom, and the IETF appoints members to the ISOC  
board.  None of these are intended to be covered by this document, so  
I agree we need to work on the wording a bit.

>
> However, I would also note that this is an IAB and IESG document,  
> and if the IAB and IESG want these statements edited into the  
> draft, then, of course, its their call.
>
> regards,
>
>    Geoff

Steve