Re: Last Call: 'Process for the IAB and IESG selection of IAOC members' to BCP

[Brian E Carpenter <brc at zurich.ibm.com>]

Fred,

I completely agree with the principles you are suggesting. But
I would be reluctant to embed statements about the ISOC appointees
in an IETF procedural BCP, because it would convolute two independent
organisation's procedures. But that's a personal opnion and I'd be
glad to hear other views.

I don't have that objection to mentioning the IETF Nomcom in
the proposed BCP, but BCP 101 is already quite specific:

   The two NomCom-appointed IAOC members are chosen using the procedures
   described in RFC 3777 [RFC3777].  For the initial IAOC selection, the
   IESG will provide the list of desired qualifications for these
   positions; in later years, the IAOC will provide this qualification
   list.  The IESG will serve as the confirming body for IAOC
   appointments by the NomCom.

I'm concerned that by adding the text you propose to this new BCP,
we are at risk of inconsistency with the above text, and of redundancy
with BCP 101, which already includes statements such as

   The IAOC is directly accountable to the IETF community for the
   performance of the IASA.
   ...
   Although the IAB, the IESG, and the ISOC Board of Trustees choose
   some members of the IAOC, those members do not directly represent the
   bodies that chose them.  All members of the IAOC are accountable
   directly to the IETF community.

Regards
    Brian

Fred Baker wrote:
> The IAB+IESG selection draft is a good start at a selection procedure  
> and set of guidelines. It does not address (and I suspect is not  
> intended to address) how ISOC and nomcom appointees to the IAOC relate  
> to the process or what their qualifications might be. I wonder,  
> however, if that is a mistake. One could imagine ISOC coming up with a  
> separate document, and the IETF coming up with a separate set of  
> instructions for the nomcom, but I submit that such is not necessary if  
> we can add few statements to this document.
>
> To be in accordance with RFC 4071, the ISOC and nomcom appointees  
> should be equally distanced from their constituencies - just as the IAB  
> and IESG appointees do not represent the IAB or IESG but rather serve  
> the entire community, the nomcom and ISOC appointees should serve the  
> entire community. In ISOC's case, that is explicitly stated in RFC  
> 4071. In "not representing a constituency but serving the entire  
> community", it seems also that an understanding of both ISOC and IETF  
> are important - it is hard to manage a relationship that one does not  
> understand. This document states that the IAB and IESG appointees
>
>    ... are also expected to be able to understand the
>    respective roles and responsibilities of the IETF and ISOC in this
>    activity, and be able to articulate these roles within the IETF
>    community.
>
> It seems to me that this should also be true of nomcom and ISOC  
> appointees, and by the way, they should be able to explain this to  
> ISOC's other members (organizational, chapter, and individual) as well,  
> and should understand the ramifications of IAOC choices for both IETF  
> and ISOC.
>
> It seems to me that what would be required to do so would be three  
> statements:
>
>    ISOC's appointees do not represent ISOC, in the same way that IAB
>    and IESG appointees do not represent the IAB or IESG. They serve
>    the entire community.
>
>    Nomcom appointees do not represent a subclass of all IETF
>    participants, in the same way that IAB and IESG appointees do not
>    represent the IAB or IESG. They serve the entire community.
>
>    Since the IAOC manages the relationship between ISOC and the IETF,
>    direct understanding of both IETF and ISOC is of value in all
>    appointees.
>
> Is there any reason the document shouldn't say that?
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 10, 2005, at 8:16 AM, The IESG wrote:
>
> > The IESG has received a request from the IAB and the IESG to
> > consider the following document:
> >
> > - 'Process for the IAB and IESG selection of IAOC members '
> >    <draft-iab-iesg-iaoc-selection-01.txt> as a BCP
> >
> > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> > final comments on this action.  Please send any comments to the
> > iesg at ietf.org or ietf at ietf.org mailing lists by 2005-07-07.
> >
> > The file can be obtained via
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iab-iesg-iaoc-selection -01.txt
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > IETF-Announce mailing list
> > IETF-Announce at ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


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