Subject: draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-06: ISOC Board of Trustee selection of IAOC member

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 11:23:05 -0500

draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-06.txt
Structure of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) (BCP)

COMMENT

   Section 4 includes a discussion of the process for selection of
   IAOC members.  There is not a paragraph that covers the member
   appointed by the ISOC Board of Trustees.  However, the guidance
   provided to the IAB and the IESG seems appropriate for the ISOC
   Board of Trustees as well:

     - Appointees need not be current ISOC Board of Trustees members
       (and probably should not be);

     - The ISOC Board of Trustees should choose people with some
       knowledge of contracts and financial procedures, who are
       familiar with the administrative support needs of the IAB,
       the IESG, or the IETF standards process.

     - The ISOC Board of Trustees should follow a fairly open process,
       perhaps with an open call for nominations or a period of public
       comment on the candidates.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 18:13:15 +0100

http://wgig.org/docs/WP-techstand.pdf

This document is interesting and documents well my positions. Except the 
need for the user of an organized comprehensive reference center. You will 
note the mention of possible national influences. This is what the IASA 
internationalization related few words I want are to prevent.

jfc

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 13:43:13 -0500

Russ,

While this strikes me as mostly harmless, I don't think it
belongs in this document.  The document itself is an IETF
document.  It has gotten a good deal of useful input from ISOC
staff, Board members, and interested parties, and we expect ISOC
to sign off on it, but it remains an IETF document.  We could
have done it in other ways --which might have been either better
or worse-- but we didn't.

I think it would be good if ISOC made its procedures public once
they decide on them.  But, if the document starts dictating
procedures to them, it both constrains future evolution
unnecessarily and might constitute a barrier to getting swift
ISOC BoT signoff on the document as they debate their own
long-term procedures in this area.

Like others, I'm reconciled to the fact that we will probably
have to revise the BCP in a year or two.  But I still think we
should keep any specifics and details that don't strictly need
to be in the document out of it, lest those force early
revisions over issues that are ultimately not important.

best,
   john

---

From: Steve Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 14:10:56 -0500

John,

Thanks for your note.

Russ,

Let me add a comment, noting that I'm currently on the ISOC board and 
also on the IASA Transition Team.  Since the Transition Team is 
essentially an interim (and restricted) version of the IAOC, I'm roughly 
in the position of being the ISOC-appointed person to the IAOC.  (And I 
don't know whether I'll be appointed to the IAOC when it's 
constituted.)  Also, I'm speaking as an individual, not representing the 
rest of the ISOC board or anyone else.

With respect to your specific suggestions, my views are:

1. Yes, I agree it's desirable that the ISOC appointee should understand 
the IETF, its standards process, and the appointee should also have a 
general understanding of contracts and finances.  I don't think we'd 
want to cast this in concrete or use any present metric for measuring 
these qualities, but I think these are, indeed, desirable qualities.  I 
would expect the ISOC board would likely take these into consideration.

2. I am of mixed minds with respect to whether the ISOC appointee should 
or should not be a sitting ISOC board member.  On the one hand, it's 
important that the IASA operation get close attention and understanding 
from the board.  This will operate to the benefit of IASA.  That 
suggests a sitting board member may be more beneficial to the IASA than 
someone who's not.

On the other hand, everyone is very busy, and getting someone from 
outside the ISOC board is a way of increasing the labor pool, which is 
always a good thing.

3. With respect to choosing someone through an open process, I think 
we'll have to see how things work out.  In the early days, the key thing 
will be to get this operation up and going.  We already have so many 
levels of checks and balances and so many requirements for transparency 
that I don't think it's essential to subject each piece of this 
operation to yet another open process (YAOP).  Open processes are 
inherently slow and time-consuming.  But lest I sound biased against it, 
I don't have a problem with this sort of selection if others also want 
to do it.  But I think it falls squarely within the purview of the ISOC 
board to decide this.  The IAOC is already defined in terms of two seats 
from each of three constituencies -- IESG, IAB and ISOC -- plus two more 
chosen through a Nomcomm process, and I think it then falls within the 
purview of each of those constituencies to make their appointments.  
ISOC has just one appointment in addition to the pres/CEO, so there's 
not much risk the appointee will unbalance things greatly.  And, at 
least as I assess things at this point, our biggest problem is finding 
finding qualified people to fill the slot.

Steve