Re: [Iasa20] draft-haberman-iasa20dt-recs-00.txt

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Jari Arkko <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> Good points. It wasn’t the intent to claim that a change in the ISOC
> interface would bring about a change in board behaviour, we were
> trying to ask for an independent change in the scope of the board.
>

Scope is an interesting problem here, because in some of these structures
(Subsidiary and independent org), a board will have a fiduciary duty to the
organization.  That duty defines the scope to a very great degree.  The
issue
isn't with scope, at least in my view, but with a combination of mechanism
and culture.



> Your point about board’s official role not necessarily driving this
> sort of behaviour is valid. Would be interested in your thoughts
> (you now also being an IAOC member) on how to change that
> in this particular case.
>
> Also:
>
> > Make no mistake, I agree that there is change needed along this axis.
>
> Let me ask a clarifying question. Since again you’ve now seen
> the insides of IASA, do you personally agree that this is at least
> a part of the problem we are having:
>
>
I have not been part of the IAOC for very long, so my opinion is mostly
shaped
by experiences outside it.  My take with that combination of experience is
that
the IAOC could not suddenly revert to a more strategic approach right now,
because many
of the processes and committees it has are built around the current way of
working.
I do think that it could move to a more strategic approach (as, IASA++
suggests)
if  a new set of support systems were in place.  The trick, and it will be
trick, is making
sure that the change goes with the adoption of the support systems *because
it will
not be an inherent part of that change*.  Some combination of personnel
changes (like
dropping the number of ex officio members), new instructions to NomCom, and
very
active recruitment of outside talent will be required.  That is likely
true, honestly, whatever
structural changes we put in place.

Obviously, this is my personal opinion, and should be taken with a bit of
"still a newbie at this"
weighting.


regards,

Ted

> > … one key concern is that the type of oversight exercised by the IAOC
> may not be appropriate.  Some folks feel that it is working at the
> "decision by decision" level rather than in the "strategic, goal-setting
> level" mode and that this contributes to a series of other issues (speed,
> transparency, and consistency all being effected) ...
>
> Jari
>
>