Subject: Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: <draft-iab-rzerc> (IETF ICANN Root Zone Evolution Review Committee Appointment Procedures)

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 19:24:40 +0100

This is mostly fine but I have three comments:-

- ICANN interactions often involve ICANN $$$. I think it ought
be clear that the IETF's nominee will not be paid for their
time. I'd be fine with ICANN picking up travel costs if the
person needs help with that. (I think that's the same as the
setup for the IETF's pick for the ICANN board, is it?.) It'd
be worth documenting that in any case.

- I think it is a mistake to allow I* folks as nominees for
this. In particular, the IAB ought not allow it's own members
to be nominees. I'd also be for dis-allowing IESG, IAOC and
IETF nomcom folks. I see no good reason to introduce potential
new conflicts of interest here when those are easily avoided.
(If someone is doing this role, and is later selected for
IAB/IESG/IAOC/nomcom, I'd be ok with that though.)

- Lastly, a minor point, if the expected workload can be
estimated, that'd be good. Even if that changes later.

S.

On 28/09/16 19:04, IAB Executive Administrative Manager wrote:
> This is an announcement of an IETF-wide Call for Comment on 
> draft-iab-rzerc-01.
> 
> The document is being considered for publication as an Informational RFC 
> within the IAB stream, and is available for inspection at:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-rzerc/
> 
> The Call for Comment will last until 2016-10-26. Please send comments to
> [email-masked] and [email-masked].
> 
> 
> Abstract
> 
>    This memo outlines the process by which the IETF makes an appointment
>    to the ICANN Root Zone Evolution Review Committee (RZERC).
> 
>

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 14:27:11 -0500

If I might chime on on Stephen's comments ...

> be worth documenting that in any case.

I agree with this. The question of compensation has come up for
IAB-appointed liaison managers as well (when an SDO offered to pay our
liaison manager to perform the role), and this is about where the
conflict-of-interest discussion ended up for that (travel OK, compensation
beyond that is not OK).

> IAB/IESG/IAOC/nomcom, I'd be ok with that though.)

The biggest reason why I'd agree with Stephen here is if the IETF ever does
anything that results in a formal appeal from ICANN, having someone
involved in the appeal at both ends is complicated. This is roughly why the
IAB is discouraged from appointing IESG members (and, to a lesser extent,
WG chairs) as liaison managers to other SDOs, after the interaction between
ITU-T and IETF on T-MPLS and MPLS-TP several years ago.

I'm not sure whether the same concern applies for IAOC or Nomcom members,
of course.

But if the IAB can't find acceptable nominees who aren't IAB members or
IESG members, that would be worrying.

> estimated, that'd be good. Even if that changes later.

I don't know that this needs to be in the document, because as Stephen
points out, the expected workload can change over time, but at least saying
in the document that the call for nominations should provide an indication
of the expected workload might be helpful.

I had one non-Stephen comment as well. I'm looking at this text,

   The IAB will select one person for a one-year term.  This appointment
   will be renewable for up to three additional one-year terms.

and wondering why this needs to be a hard limit *in the document*. I can
easily imagine the IAB saying "gee, that person's been in the position for
a long time, and we should really look hard for a replacement" even without
this text, and I'd like to think the IAB would Do The Right Thing.

If the four-term restriction is tied to something at ICANN, of course,
that's different.

Spencer

---

From: Daniel Migault <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 18:55:09 +0000

Hi, 

Reading the draft, here are my thoughts.

Maybe we should have some rules that should prevent someone to be the ICANN Root Zone Evolution Review Committee (RZERC) member for multiple organizations.  I would expect something like this with of course a more appropriated and a better wording:

The candidate for representing IETF at the RZERC a candidate MUST disclose 1) the organizations he is already a RZERC member, 2) the organizations processing a RZERC member application and 3) the relation toward the organization represented at RZERC. In addition, when appointed by the IETF, he MUST NOT apply to represent another organization at RZERC without an explicit agreement from the IAB/IETF. 

I do not either see any procedure to revoke a member. Suppose the nominated person does not respond to emails or is not representing the IETF/IAB views. My understanding is that we will have to wait its term ends. Maybe we should provide some ways so the IAB can revoke the nomination.  

Evaluation of the load seems to me a bit premature for now and the activity may vary upon time. 

BR, 
Daniel

On 28/09/16 19:04, IAB Executive Administrative Manager wrote:
> The document is being considered for publication as an Informational 
> RFC within the IAB stream, and is available for inspection at:
> The Call for Comment will last until 2016-10-26. Please send comments 
> to [email-masked] and [email-masked].
> 
> 
> Abstract
>