Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5

[Michael StJohns <mstjohns at mindspring.com>]

John/Leslie et al - this is a good improvement, and Leslie's 3.5 now reads 
in a way I can support.  3.6 still has some sticking points.

After the last round of comments I went away and thought and came up with 
the following:

There are three separate things that I think were meant by the original 3.5 
phrase "review".  They were IAOC review of IAD decisions, IAOC 
reconsideration of its own actions and public review of the IAOC and IAD 
actions.

"Review" above I took to have a meaning in line with "judicial 
reexamination" with all the nuances that follow from that. In other words, 
review can result in a revision of the action (i.e. "overturned").

Considering IAOC review of IAD decisions, this is probably proper and not 
overly burdensome to the process, and probably the most appropriate check 
and balance on the IAD.  Its the latter two that are sticky.

The questions I still have that none of the language has answered:

What's the goal of the reconsideration or review?  E.g. can this action 
result in the IAOC or IAD reversing or revising a decision?  If not, why do it?

What's the statute of limitations for a demand for reconsideration or 
review? Is an action or decision subject to reexamination 6 months after 
the decision?  Does the IAD or IAOC need to announce such decisions with 
enough of a waiting period that the reexamination process can take place 
before the decision becomes final?

What is the exact set of decisions subject to this 
process?  Everything?  Meeting sites?  Meeting fees?  A delay in 
publication of an RFC?  Cost of paper needed to support an IETF 
meeting?  The date of the public meeting?  Etc.  If we can't come up with a 
description of this that isn't "everything" I'm very concerned, but I'm 
having problems figuring out what smaller set is appropriate.

Who gets to kick this process into starting (e.g. who gets to file a 
complaint)?


I'm going to suggest this section still needs radical reworking.  And, 
since we pay more attention to people who suggest solutions to problems I'm 
going to suggest some approaches that may make sense.  (Note - I'm using 
"semi-annual" here - could me annual, could be monthly)

"The normal channel for public review of the actions of the IAOC and the 
IAD is during the semi-annual public meeting.  Beginning 60 days prior to 
the meeting and ending 30 days prior the IAD will accept proposals for 
public hearings on past activities of the IAOC.  The IAD in consultation 
with the IAOC, the IESG and the IAB will select no more than 3 topics for 
hearing and will publish such list no later than 21 days prior to the 
meeting including as well those topics not selected.   Each topic will be 
heard during a 2 hour (pick a length) session.  Anyone may submit questions 
for the IAOC and IAD on the selected topic, and the IAD will select no more 
than 10 to provide written answers no later than 5 days prior to the 
meeting.  The complete list of submitted questions will be published at 
that time as well.  Anyone may request time to speak during a session and 
will make that request via email no later than 5 days prior to the 
meeting.  No more than 75% of the session time will be allocated to ...."

(OK - I'm getting way too detailed here for a comment - but you see where 
I'm going)

"The IAD shall advise the IAOC of and shall require consent from them for 
any decision which commits the IETF to an expenditure of funds.  The IAOC 
may from time to time specify other decisions for which its approval shall 
be required.  A decision for which consent is given by the IAOC is not 
subject to further review or revision by the IAOC.  A decision made by the 
IAD shall be considered final and not reviewable by the IAOC 30 days after 
the IAOC is informed of such decision.  Such notifications shall be placed 
on the web site once the 30 days expires or after the IAOC ratifies the 
related decision."

"The IAOC and IAD shall not be required to reconsider their decisions once 
made.  However, IAOC and IAD shall request public comment for those 
decisions which will have a major change in the visible support available 
to the IETF and shall request such comments beginning at least 45 days 
prior to the date of the decision and ending no later than 7 days 
prior.  All such comments shall be public and will be made available on the 
IAOC web site."

"The actual decision of where to hold any individual IETF meeting is not 
subject to the above process as the complex relationship between timing, 
budget, hosting proposals, and site availability does not lend itself well 
to public comment.  However, the IAOC will solicit feedback on selected 
sites, proposals for future sites, needs of the participants, and general 
commentary on the balance of meeting sites across the various areas of the 
globe."

"Contractual issues by the ISOC on behalf of the IAOC/IAD/IETF are also not 
subject to the above process due to the legal constraints of the 
contracting process.  The IAOC/IAD shall request public input for any 
contemplated solicitation for IETF support services prior to the issuance 
of such solicitation.  [Are there any classes of this where asking the 
public might not be appropriate?]"


As you can see, I'm a big fan of getting input up front, but much less so 
of post-decision whining. I also can't figure out a reasonable way of 
constraining the "public" with respect to getting the IAD/IAOC to change 
their mind.  This provides a mechanism post-decision to provide the needed 
feedback, a pre-decision mechanism to solicit input without turning the 
IETF into a monkey on the back of the IAOC.

 I think the appropriate venue for IAD/IAOC public review is during the 
public meeting.  State and local governments have used this to good effect 
over the years.  Note that I also am suggesting a much more structure bitch 
session - the structure we use at the IETF plenaries isn't going to be 
efficient enough or documented enough to provide the level of oversight 
that people seem to be asking for.


At 09:43 AM 1/22/2005, John C Klensin wrote:
> Leslie,
>
> I think this is a huge improvement, and a large step in the
> right direction.  Two observations:
>
> (i) In the revised 3.5, it would be good to get a slightly
> better handle/ definition on what is, or is not, a "business
> decision".  Since the IAD and IAOC are ultimately all about
> business decisions (and management decisions that are arguably a
> subset of management decisions), an IAOC acting in poor faith
> could easily argue that any decision fell within that category.
> I'd consider saying "contractual or personnel decisions", but
> don't know if that is sufficient.  _However_, in practice, if we
> couldn't find satisfactory text, it probably don't make much
> difference: an IAOC that resorts to that sort of hair-splitting
> would probably need a much more drastic course correction than
> any quibbling about the text of the BCP would provide.
>
> (ii) In deference to one of the points Mike made, I think the
> first "review" paragraph could usefully be modified to read
> "...ask for a formal review (including reconsideration if that
> is appropriate) of the decision."   I don't think that needs to
> be repeated further on, but will leave that to editorial
> judgment.  Another way to accomplish the same thing, also
> subject to editorial preference, would be to add a sentence
> toward the bottom, that indicates that outcome of a review could
> include either a decision to do things differently in the future
> or reconsideration, if it is not an already-committed business
> decision, of the pending action.
>
>     john



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf