Subject: [Iasa20] IAOC != IASA

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 07:49:22 +1200

This is a bit of carry-over from the mtgvenue list. I raised
the point that since the IAOC is meant to be the oversight
committee, and the IASA (led by the IAD) is meant to be the
executive, the mtgvenue drafts should refer to the IASA pretty
much every place that they currently refer to the IAOC. In mtgvenue,
it's an editorial comment. Here, it's substantive: please read on.

    Brian

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] New issue: s/IAOC/IASA/
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 09:57:37 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
To: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
CC: [email-masked]

On 4/5/2017 7:33 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> They both keep referring to the IAOC as if it were an executive body. It isn't; it's an oversight committee. The executive body is the IASA, led by the IAD.
> 
> To a large extent this can fixed by a global s/IAOC/IASA/ in both documents. There may be some places where a little rephrasing is needed.

Except that the reality is that the IAOC makes the decisions, not 
"IASA".  Further, IASA is defined as an "activity", not a 
decision-making body.  Rather than creating clarity and correctness, the 
suggested label change would reduce both.

The fact that the IAOC was envisioned as doing 'oversight' but the 
reality has produced something else should nor cause a Procrustean 
adherence to formal vocabulary semantics instead of operational pragmatics.

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 20:56:32 +0100

Yeah, interesting question. What are the realities? Do those
depend on the topic or sub-ctte involved? In any case, it'd
be good if someone explained that here so folks are properly
informed as to today's baseline reality.

If describing such things, and if the answer is topic or
sub-ctte dependent, it might help to combine that with the
exercise that I hope will be done to analyse the things done by
IASA that do or do not require some level of confidentiality
(as an exception).

Cheers,
S.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 13:17:20 -0700

On 4/5/2017 12:49 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> the IASA (led by the IAD)

Where is the 'led by' specified?

The closest I can find is:

      RFC 4071, 3.  Structure of the IASA:

    "The IASA consists initially of a single full-time ISOC employee, the
    IETF Administrative Director (IAD), who is entitled to act on behalf
    of the IASA at the direction of the IAOC."

and
    "Although the IAD is an ISOC employee, he or she works under the
    direction of the IAOC.  A committee of the IAOC is responsible for
    hiring and firing the IAD, for reviewing the IAD's performance, and
    for setting the compensation of the IAD."

Which clearly does not specify 'led by'.

In fact, swapping IASA for uses of IAOC is simply wrong, most of the 
time, and the rest of the time is obscures current administrative and 
decision-making realities.

d/

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 09:43:03 +1200

Hi Dave,

Firstly, we are definitely in YMMV territory, which is why it needs to
be clarified. So what follows is all IMHO.
>     of the IASA at the direction of the IAOC."

I think there are several points rolled up together in this sentence.

1. The word 'initially.' We've never revisited it, but the issues raised
about workload and the number of ISOC staff that the IAD calls on clearly
mean it needs to be revisited.

2. 'act on behalf of the IASA' (and the description of the IAD's duties
elsewhere in 4071) make it fairly clear that the IAD is the executive.

In particular:
"3.1.  IAD Responsibilities

   The IAD is responsible for working with the IAOC and others to
   understand the administrative requirements of the IETF, and for
   managing the IASA to meet those needs...."

3. 'at the direction of the IAOC' and your second quotation certainly
make it clear that the IAOC is the boss.

> decision-making realities.

So, while accepting your report on what actually happens today,
please read:

"3.2.  IAOC Responsibilities

   The IAOC's role is to provide appropriate direction to the IAD, to
   review the IAD's regular reports, and to oversee IASA functions to
   ensure that the administrative needs of the IETF community are being
   properly met.  The IAOC's mission is not to be engaged in the day-
   to-day administrative work of the IASA, but rather to provide
   appropriate direction, oversight, and approval...."

Your description clearly indicates that this is not what the IAOC
currently does. Neither is it really what the IAOC did in 2005/7 when
I served on it. Our excuses then were that the IAD was new in the job,
and needed quite a bit of mentoring; all the first batch of contracts
had to be set up; and we had the unplanned distraction of setting up
the Trust.

I think a key question for the IASA2.0 effort is whether we want
these quotes from RFC 4071 sect. 3.1 and 3.2 to be made effective
or not. That choice has a major impact on the type of changes we
should propose. 
 
    Brian

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:53:35 -0700

On 4/5/2017 2:43 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Hi Dave,
> 
> Firstly, we are definitely in YMMV territory, 

Actually, given the words you used before and the actual language 
defining roles, we're not.  We're in the territory of basic 
understanding of roles and responsibilities and relationships.

> mean it needs to be revisited.

That well might be a useful topic, but it is irrelevant to the focus of 
your previous note and the exception I took with it.

> elsewhere in 4071) make it fairly clear that the IAD is the executive.

No.  "acting on behalf" says nothing about the seniority of the actor or 
the relationship to the overall activity.  A salesperson acts on behalf. 
  An attorney negotiating a contract acts on behalf.  And so on.

> currently does.

No it doesn't clearly indicate that, nor was it intended to.

Possibly there was an original assumption that 'not to be engaged in the 
day-to-day" meant some sor of highly DIS-engaged relationship with only 
the most minimal, occasional review, but there is a long way between 
that very mild involvement and 'day-to-day'.  The reality is somewhere 
in between.  Quite far both both extremes, IMO.

d/

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 10:46:19 -0400

Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:
    > This is a bit of carry-over from the mtgvenue list. I raised the point
    > that since the IAOC is meant to be the oversight committee, and the
    > IASA (led by the IAD) is meant to be the executive, the mtgvenue drafts
    > should refer to the IASA pretty much every place that they currently
    > refer to the IAOC. In mtgvenue, it's an editorial comment. Here, it's
    > substantive: please read on.

I think that there is probably some restructuring/UPdate of text in our IASA2.0
document needed, because I don't think the IASA/IAOC distinction is
meaningful in our running code.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 04:05:54 +1200

> meaningful in our running code.

Yes, but that's exactly the point we need to discuss: is it OK that people who
volunteer for an "oversight" committee find themselves doing the work they're
supposed to be overseeing?

    Brian