Re: [IAOC] question to the IAOC: new committee members

["Scott O. Bradner" <[e-mail]>]

I told you the process we used for the legal committee

we knew Joel, he was the only volunteer, no one said anything against him, so we said OK

I’m not sure want more we could have said in the minutes in this case

others can speak to the other committees

Scott


> On Nov 16, 2016, at 9:07 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I did, and 3 times already.
> 
> They only reflect the decision, not the process. IT IS NOT TRANSPARENT.
> 
> 
> Committee Member Updates
> 1. On July 18, 2016 the IAOC Chair announced that the IAOC was interested in broadening nonmember
> participation in its committees and requested those who were interested to respond
> by 1 August.
> 2. The IAOC received expressions of interest from 9 community members.
> Resolution
> The IAOC appoints the following community members (+ ex-officio positions) to the respective
> committee based upon their experience and interest, and subject to their [availability]
> willingness to execute a non-disclosure agreement, for the 2016-2017 term:
> a. Finance Committee - Michael Richardson
> b. Legal Committee - Joel Halpern
> c. Meetings Committee - Yang Huaru, Avri Doria
> Jari made the motion to approve the new committee members. John seconded the motion.
> Roll Call:
> Jari Arkko [YES]
> Lou Berger [YES]
> Kathy Brown [YES]
> Leslie Daigle [YES]
> Tobias Gondrom [YES]
> John Levine [YES]
> Andrew Sullivan [YES]
> The motion carries.
> Action: We need to follow-up with those who were not selected and announce the new
> members.
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> 
> 
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: "Scott O. Bradner" <[e-mail]>
> Responder a: <[e-mail]>
> Fecha: jueves, 17 de noviembre de 2016, 10:42
> Para: <[e-mail]>
> CC: IAOC IAOC <[e-mail]>, IETF discussion list <[e-mail]>
> Asunto: Re: [IAOC] question to the IAOC: new committee members
> 
>    Jordi
> 
>    	please take a look at the IAOC minutes for September 8 2016
> 
>    Scott
> 
>> On Nov 16, 2016, at 8:24 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Of course, I checked all the minutes, before my first posting on this. I read them once per month or so.
>> 
>> I check them again right now. I see the case for the legal committee, or others that may have a single volunteer, which is perfectly fine then, but no details on the others …
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Jordi
>> 
>> 
>> -----Mensaje original-----
>> De: ietf <[e-mail]> en nombre de "Scott O. Bradner" <[e-mail]>
>> Responder a: <[e-mail]>
>> Fecha: jueves, 17 de noviembre de 2016, 10:19
>> Para: <[e-mail]>
>> CC: IAOC IAOC <[e-mail]>, IETF discussion list <[e-mail]>
>> Asunto: Re: [IAOC] question to the IAOC: new committee members
>> 
>>   speaking for the legal committee, we had one volunteer that many of us know well - there was
>>   no specific scoring since we knew that the one volunteer would be fine and he was invited to join the committee.
>> 
>>   there was a few minutes discussion on an IAOC call and I assume that the result was minuted 
>>   but do not recall 
>> 
>>   Scott
>> 
>>> On Nov 16, 2016, at 8:11 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I understand that and the workload increase, but clearly the way to accommodate to it, in a transparent way is to increase the number of seats, which I believe requires a small modification of RFC4071.
>>> 
>>> I think that “common” as you say is ok, but always with a predefined procedure, clear for all the community. For example:
>>> 
>>> 1) There is some scoring to appoint people depending on their capabilities/merits?
>>> 2) Where are the detailed minutes of that decision process, so we can review it?
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Jordi
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Mensaje original-----
>>> De: ietf <[e-mail]> en nombre de Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>
>>> Organización: University of Auckland
>>> Responder a: <[e-mail]>
>>> Fecha: jueves, 17 de noviembre de 2016, 4:26
>>> Para: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
>>> Asunto: Re: question to the IAOC: new committee members
>>> 
>>>  Jordi,
>>> 
>>>  It's very common for committees to appoint sub-committees, within their
>>>  range of responsibilities, and for sub-committees to coopt experts.
>>> 
>>>  I am not in the least shocked by this; in fact given the expansion of
>>>  the IASA's workload over the last 10 years it seems entirely normal
>>>  to me. I don't think anything has been hidden, and of course the IAOC
>>>  as a whole remains responsible for the work of IASA subcommittees,
>>>  according to section 3.2 of RFC4071. Specifically "The IAOC's mission
>>>  is not to be engaged in the day-to-day administrative work of the IASA,
>>>  but rather to provide appropriate direction, oversight, and approval."
>>> 
>>>  Regards
>>>     Brian
>>> 
>>>  On 16/11/2016 23:38, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>>>> All the IETF positions have rules to be selected, nomcom, etc., and there is a great transparency on the process.
>>>> 
>>>> However today we discovered that new members have been selected for IAOC committees.
>>>> 
>>>> What have been the rules/process for that?
>>>> 
>>>> One of the questions that have been discussed several times is the lack of transparency from the IAOC, and clearly here we have a new demonstration of that.
>>>> 
>>>> I hope there is a clear statement from IAOC explaining the process.
>>>> 
>>>> If that not happens, what is the process to appeal that decision, so I can follow it?
>>>> 
>>>> We as a community, in my opinion, can’t keep going with this lack of transparency.
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Jordi
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> **********************************************
>>>> IPv4 is over
>>>> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>>>> http://www.consulintel.es
>>>> The IPv6 Company
>>>> 
>>>> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> **********************************************
>>> IPv4 is over
>>> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>>> http://www.consulintel.es
>>> The IPv6 Company
>>> 
>>> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> **********************************************
>> IPv4 is over
>> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>> http://www.consulintel.es
>> The IPv6 Company
>> 
>> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.consulintel.es
> The IPv6 Company
> 
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
> 
> 
>