Subject: Draft IAOC Administrative Policy

From: Ray Pelletier <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 03:52:42 -0400

All;

The IAOC is considering  adopting Administrative Procedures. The Draft 
policy can be found at: http://iaoc.ietf.org/policyandprocedures.html in 
doc, pdf and txt formats.

Some areas covered include:
1. Number of meetings per year
2. Chair Selection
3. Quorum and Voting

The IAOC expects to adopt a policy at its 21 August meeting.

Your input in most appreciated.

Ray Pelletier
IETF Administrative Director

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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 23:45:54 +1200

I hope this is a small point, but is it clear that what
you want is legal counsel to the IAOC rather than to IASA?

    Brian

On 2008-07-26 19:52, Ray Pelletier wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:02:49 +0100

> Your input in most appreciated.

The draft is nicely simple and straightforward.  There seem to be only a small
number of holes worth closing:

> IAOC Administrative Procedures
...

> 1.	The IAOC shall hold at least ten meetings each calendar year, as face to
> face meetings, as teleconferences at which all participants can speak and
> hear each other, or as a combination.

#3 defines a quorum.  Item #1 ought to specify that a qualifying meeting has a 
quorum present.  Absent a quorum, it doesn't count as one of the 10 meetings. 
(And if this isn't the policy you intend, it's worth making that explicit. 
However, that means there could be no meetings ever having a quorum...)

This is more than a formal nicety.  Ensuring a quorum creates some pressure to 
line up participation ahead of time.

> 7.	The IAOC voting members shall not receive any compensation (apart from
> reimbursement of expenses) for their services as IAOC members.

Most members are likely to have their principal employer subsidize their IAOC 
participation, on one fashion or another.  Given the history of the IETF, I 
suspect no one will consider this problematic.

The current wording would seem to prohibit that.  I suspect the intention is 
that IETF, IAOC, ISOC (or the like, related organizations) won't be compensating 
participation.

> 8.	The IAOC shall be guided by RFC 4071, as amended and supplemented.

"Guided by" is such an interesting language choice.  Possibly quite a good one. 
But distinctive enough to warrant some clarification, I think.

For example, it implies that the IAOC is free to utterly ignore it, after have 
been "guided by" it.  Perhaps that is both intended and desired?  Still, this 
item pertains to decision-making policy.

So, for example, is IAOC free to be whimsical about applying Section 2.3 of 
4071?  (No, I don't think a real IAOC decision would be so cavalier.  But a 
formal document needs to specify things carefully.)

With respect to decision-making, should this document specify any sort of 
appeals process?  That is, should it specify a line of accountability?

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf