Subject: Proposed Changes to IAOC Admin Procedures for Review

From: IETF Administrative Director <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 05:50:36 -0800

As required by RFC 7691 the IAOC has developed a proposed update to
the IAOAC Administrative Procedures to define the start and end of
the terms of IAOC members

Please see the proposed changes, Draft IAOC Administrative
Procedures dated 8 December 2015 here:
<https://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/IAOC-Administrative-Procedures-2015
-02.pdf>.

Please send any comments before 4 February 2016 to [email-masked].

Thanks
Ray Pelletier
IETF Administrative Director

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 13:17:17 -0500

--On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 05:50 -0800 IETF Administrative
Director <[email-masked]> wrote:

> As required by RFC 7691 the IAOC has developed a proposed
> update to the IAOAC Administrative Procedures to define the
> start and end of the terms of IAOC members
> 
> <https://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/IAOC-Administrative-Procedure
> s-2015 -02.pdf>.
> 

Ray,

Other than some concerns about how long it took you and the IAOC
to post this after 7691 was approved, one observation:  With the
first sentence in the first paragraph of Section 2.1(2) as an
example, the document seems to be much more confusingly-written
(and hence hard to read and understand) than it needs to be.   I
_think_ I know what that paragraph means, but cannot be sure
without reading it several more times and then studying BCP 101
_and_ the "adopted IAOC policies".  For the latter, there is no
citation and it appears that the only way to find whatever is
relevant is to read through some significant fraction of the
documents linked to from
http://iaoc.ietf.org/policy-procedures.html and perhaps some
large percentage of the Minutes (at
http://iaoc.ietf.org/minutes.html), including those that might
document policy decisions that have been approved by not yet
documented.

As part of that confusion, if my vague and faulty memory is
correct, part of the debate leading up to 7691 was about whether
the IAOC could decide to have outgoing members participate in
the selection meeting and, if so, whether one of them could
chair it.  I think the decision was to leave such details to the
IAOC's discretion and good sense, but with the understanding
that the details would be documented.  This draft does not
appear to satisfy that need -- the questions appear to still be
open. 

I don't know if others have similar reactions, but I would have
appreciated it if you had taken the small amount of time to edit
the document presentation before posting to eliminate change
indications, such as "deletions" for renumbered sections, that
are basically spurious artifacts of adding an additional section.

I think you and the IAOC can do a much better job of serving the
community than this draft suggests.
 
    john

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 08:29:49 +1300

John, and IAOC,
On 21/01/2016 07:17, John C Klensin wrote:

> to post this after 7691 was approved

I'm not concerned about that; it only needs to be done before IETF 95.

...
> appear to satisfy that need -- the questions appear to still be

I see this in the new text:
"In furtherance of this requirement the date and time of the terms of individual regular IAOC
members begin or end at the start of the IAOC meeting held during the first IETF..."

I would find this a bit clearer if it said:
"In furtherance of this requirement the date and time of the terms of new individual regular IAOC
members begin at the start of the IAOC meeting held during the first IETF... and the terms of
outgoing individual regular IAOC members end at the start of that meeting."

That being so, it is clear (to me) that the temporary chair cannot be
an outgoing member.

And yes, it might be helpful to add a sentence stating that outgoing members may
remain present and may speak during the meeting, although that really doesn't
seem like it needs spelling out.

While I'm here:
"...the IAOC elects a chair by a majority vote via a secret ballot."

A secret ballot? Really? In such a small committee? Most times, there'll
only be one willing candidate anyway, so the ballot can be waived.

    Brian

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 16:04:51 -0500

--On Thursday, January 21, 2016 08:29 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> "In furtherance of this requirement the date and time of the
> terms of individual regular IAOC members begin or end at the
> start of the IAOC meeting held during the first IETF..."
> 
> "In furtherance of this requirement the date and time of the
> terms of new individual regular IAOC members begin at the
> start of the IAOC meeting held during the first IETF... and
> the terms of outgoing individual regular IAOC members end at
> the start of that meeting."

yes.   But the sentences I was most concerned about were:

>> In furtherance of this requirement one of the regular or ex
>> officio IAOC members not eligible to be elected as the IAOC
>> Chair under BCP 101 or under adopted IAOC policies shall open
>> the IAOC meeting held during the first IETF meeting of the
>> year and act as a temporary Chair. The temporary chair shall,
>> as the first order of business in the meeting, call for
>> nominations for IAOC chair from among the members of the IAOC
>> defined as eligible for the role under BCP 101 or under
>> adopted IAOC policies.

Now, read that quickly, ideally after a dose of strong drink or
equivalent to calibrate your perceptions, and then, without
studying BCP 101 or any the IAOC policies adopted since IASA was
created or any period of contemplation, tell me who is eligible
to be temporary chair for meeting.

I am sure it can be figured out and I'm confident that it is
unambiguous.  But our goal in writing things like this policy
document should be easy and clear community understanding, not a
research and analysis project that every member of the community
who cares must carry out separately.

    john

---

From: "Scott O. Bradner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 16:16:40 -0500

do you have any suggestions for rewording to make this clear(er)?

Scott

> On Jan 20, 2016, at 4:04 PM, John C Klensin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
>

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 18:48:54 -0500

> do you have any suggestions for rewording to make this

(1) Take Brian's suggestion about the other problematic
statement.

(2) In both the paragraph that bothered Brian and the one that
bothered me, but using the first one as an example, think about
whether you really need the rather pompous-sounding "In
furtherance of this requirement" and replace it with either
"Consistent with this requirement" or just drop it entirely and
have "The date and time...".  It may be lawyer-speak to write
that way, but your audience, the last I checked, was not lawyers.

See below.

>>>> Chair under BCP 101 or under adopted IAOC policies shall
>>>> open the IAOC meeting held during the first IETF meeting of
>>>> the year and act as a temporary Chair. The temporary chair
>>>> shall, as the first order of business in the meeting, call
>>>> for nominations for IAOC chair from among the members of
>>>> the IAOC defined as eligible for the role under BCP 101 or
>>>> under adopted IAOC policies.
>> 
>> Now, read that quickly, ideally after a dose of strong drink
>> or equivalent to calibrate your perceptions, and then, without
>> studying BCP 101 or any the IAOC policies adopted since IASA
>> was created or any period of contemplation, tell me who is
>> eligible to be temporary chair for meeting.
>...

(3) Replace that paragraph with:

	"A temporary chair shall be selected to open the IAOC
	meeting held during the first IETF meeting of the year.
	The temporary chair shall be one of the regular or
	ex-officio IAOC members who is not eligible to be
	elected as the IAOC Chair.  The first order of business
	in the meeting shall be a  call for nominations for IAOC
	chair.  The restrictions and requirements as to who may
	be IAOC Chair are discussed in BCP 101, Section XXX, and
	may be further restricted by policies by the IAOC and
	found at <URL> under the heading ABCDEFG."

I think that is shorter.  It avoids the horribly (IMO)
convoluted sentences.  It assumes the IETF community is smart
enough to figure out that everyone who is not eligible is
eligible and vice versa.  It points to the requirements only
once and includes specific pointers into BCP 101 and to any
relevant requirements (if such requirements exist, it may
require a few minutes work on the appropriate web page, but I'd
assume that is within the capabilities of the IAD, IAOC, and the
staff on which they can call.  If the IAOC cannot figure out
what "XXX" and "<URL>" are, we have bigger problems.

Speaking of staff on which the IAOC might call, it may be useful
to remind the IAOC and IAD that it has a highly skilled
editorial team who are really good at this stuff under assorted
contracts as elements of the RFC Editor function.   It would
almost certainly be more efficient to call on them to get
something right the first (or second) time than to expect
editing work to be done on the IETF list.

And, yes, I'm annoyed at being asked to do this editing and
being asked to deal with the problem in the first place.  I
think a document that hard to follow, given its purpose, is
unprofessional and that the IAOC should be considering who among
its membership has served too long, is not paying attention, or
should be resigning (for those or other reasons) rather than
waiting to be retired by appointing bodies.   But that is just
my (admittedly annoyed) option, probably connected (although
that is not my intent) to disturbance over other issues that
have come up lately, especially consistent lack of transparency
about meeting planning and contracts.

     john

---

From: "Scott O. Bradner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:13:00 -0500

thanks - the suggested language is helpful

Scott

> On Jan 20, 2016, at 6:48 PM, John C Klensin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
>

---

From: "Scott O. Bradner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:33:40 -0500

Since it was brought up on the list, the membership of the IAOC currently is:

Jari Arkko, the IETF Chair (ex officio) - joined IAOC March 2013
Lou Berger, first appointed March 2015
Kathy Brown, the ISOC President/CEO (ex officio) -  joined Jan 2014
Scott Bradner, first appointed March 2012, term up April 2016
Leslie Daigle, appointed to current term June 2015
Tobias Gondrom, first appointed March 2014
Benson Schliesser, first appointed March 2015
Andrew Sullivan, the IAB Chair (ex officio) - joined March 2014

plus
Ray Pelletier, IETF Administrative Director (non-voting)

all short timers, other than Ray and me (who will be leaving the IAOC in April)

Scott

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 11:30:50 -0500

> thanks - the suggested language is helpful

Thanks.  Glad it helped.

Suggestion to the IAOC: I think it would be extremely helpful if
you went through the rest of this document and all of your other
significant procedural documents and cleaned up language that
appears necessary only if your goal is to impress amateur
lawyers (or perhaps real ones of some decades ago) with your
ability to sound formal.  

>From my point of view, BCP 101 creates as strong an obligation
on you to act transparently and explain clearly to the community
what you are doing as it does to take the required actions.
Language that obfuscates rather than clarifying does not meet
that requirement.  For the record, despite Scott's accepting
responsibility, I don't think he is the problem: in the more
than 40 years we've known, and often worked with, each other,
I've never observed his writing that way on his own.  Even if he
did, this document was presented to the community as "from the
IAOC", not "from Scott" and that means all of you had an
obligation to review sufficiently, or make sure the reviews are
dong sufficiently, to share responsibility (I note that is the
same obligation we assume of WGs submitting documents for
community review and the IESG and IAB when they do so).

If reviewing and upgrading these sorts of documents (and meeting
a number of other commitments to the community, such as posting
contracts (redacted if needed)) is impossible then, especially
for those who were appointed specifically to serve on the IAOC
and as Trustees, I think the community should hear about your
priorities or, if you are all working long hours on the IAOC but
unable to do everything BCP 101 and the community are calling
for, that you tell us and, ideally, propose a reorganization
that would allow the work to get done better.

    best,
     john