Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] I-D Action:draft-galvin-rfc3777bis-00.txt

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:41:19 +1300

> <32>
>    3.  One-half of each of the then current positions is selected to be
>        reviewed each year.
> 
>        The intent of this rule to ensure the review of approximately
>        one-half of the sitting members of the bodies to which this
>        document applies.  

Note that as far as the IAOC seats are concerned, this has to be read
along with BCP101 section 4. I think a normative reference would be
useful.

> <33>
...
>        For confirmed candidates of other bodies the terms overlap with
>        the terms of the sitting members for the entire week of the
>        meeting.

This, I fear, actually updates BCP101, which allows for zero overlap,
as far as I can tell. This has legal significance, as far as trusteeship
of the IETF Trust goes, so it needs to be rock solid.

> <39>	
> 			1. The IETF Executive Director informs the nominating committee	
> 			of the open positions to be reviewed.

I observe that there is no such person as the Exec D any more.
Under BCP101, the IAOC's duties include:

>>    o  To designate, in consultation with the IAB and the IESG, the
>>       person or people who carry out the tasks that other IETF process
>>       documents say are carried out by the IETF Executive Director.

At http://iaoc.ietf.org/execd-tasks.html you can find

>> Both occurrences of "Executive Director" are replaced by "Secretariat."

    Brian

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 09:43:32 -0400

>Under BCP101, the IAOC's duties include:

Not so.  The IETF Executive Director is currently Alexa Morris.

Russ

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 09:28:57 +1300

> Not so.  The IETF Executive Director is currently Alexa Morris.

Clearly, I have no problem with this, but RFC4071 was written on
the assumption that the job title was OBE. That leaves a small
inconsistency to be cleared up, but not here.

   Brian

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:05:17 -0700

-- On March 16, 2009 3:41:19 PM +1300 Brian E Carpenter 
<[email-masked]> wrote regarding Re: [ietf-nomcom] I-D 
Action:draft-galvin-rfc3777bis-00.txt --

> >        For confirmed candidates of other bodies the terms overlap
> >        with the terms of the sitting members for the entire week of
> >        the meeting.
>
> as far as I can tell. This has legal significance, as far as
> trusteeship of the IETF Trust goes, so it needs to be rock solid.

BCP101 only speaks explicitly to when terms end, not to when terms 
begin.  So, I would not agree that it "allows for zero overlap."

However, if there is a legal issue then we should get legal advice.  I 
don't see any issue with stating whatever the "overlap" or 
"non-overlap" needs to be for the IAOC, according to whatever our legal 
advice dictates.

Jim