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

[Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>]

What Joe said.

Despite what the document may be saying, we did think of the nature of the
IAOC decision making and ISOC relationship as two different dimensions of
the solution space. They are related, but not bound to each other. My personal
opinion is that there absolutely needs to be a change in what the scope of
community-filled oversight board does from what they are doing today,
irrespective of what happens in the ISOC interface.

Ted wrote:

> Changes in the relationship to ISOC might be useful for clarity in fund raising, in financial management, and in other structural things …

Well articulated.

> Many different board types dive in and out of the weeds and selecting a new type thus may not help us avoid that.   Avoiding that requires understanding what drives a board to drill down and what keeps them in that path after (in our case, I suspect it was initially concerns over capture and eventually precedent).

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.
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:

> … 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