Re: 1601bis: The Charter of IAB

["Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" <[e-mail]>]

Hello:

Thank you for you reply and your valuable time. This following 
is "LONG" (as it is now the dragon year :-). You might want
to hit d(delete) now, or adjust your procmail configuration.

Brian E Carpenter wrote:

>>> Files can be obtained via
>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-iab-rfc1601bis-02.txt

>>  1. Why should the IESG approve the charter? Why not the ISOC?

> Because this is an IETF document defining the charter of an 
> IETF committee.

Oh, I see... first of all, I have no problem that the IESG
is the one in charge of giving each BCP a "sequence" number.
However, letting the IESG approve its "appealing body" charter
might be a little bit complicated.

Borrowing Li's term, a BCP is something that is:
     ....................................
     "accepted by the IETF, and by God, 
      this is how we're gonna do things".
     ....................................

In my understanding, therefore, a BCP should be more than
just accepted by the IETF. Furthermore, the first charter 
of IAB was introduced in a different way:

  ............................................................
  Subject: Draft IAB charter as part of ISOC
  From: Lyman Chapin
  Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92

  [...] Before I present the charter to the ISOC board, 
  I would like to hear from any of you who may have comments
  on the draft. Incorporation of the IAB into the ISOC brings 
  the IESG, IETF, and all of the other "pieces" into the ISOC 
  as well, so please read the proposed charter carefully, 
  and feel free to comment either directly to me or to the 
  IAB and/or IETF as a whole.

  [... see also RFC-1358 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1358.txt ]
  .............................................................


And so was RFC-1602 ( http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1602.txt )

  .........................................................  
  Notice
 
  [...] This document is provisional, pending legal review
   and concurrence of the Internet Society Trustees.  [...]
  .........................................................


See also the minutes DRAFT of POISED95 WG, Los Angeles, 
4 & 5 March 1996:

   ..........................................................
   Minutes:  Bob Steen
   Chair:    Erik Huizer

   Overall Document Issues.
   ========================
   All three documents need to be accepted by the ISOC BoT.
   They will be given last call at the IETF level and then sent
   with a letter to the ISOC BoT.

   (... this following is extra ...)
   There was a short discussion on whether or not the Poised96
   should try to find out what is wrong with the process and
   examine the IAB, IETF, IRTF Roles  What's wrong?  What's not?
   The goal being to make a broad recommendation to fix these
   problems.  After discussion, this was dropped as unworkable.
   ...........................................................



So, what is the problem of clarifying who reviews the IAB
charter, and how it is going to be modified? Basically,
the IESG should concentrate with IETF's "core business",
and get rid (=out source) whatever the IESG is not 
interested to do in the first place.


>> 2. There is no clear statement about the relationship between
>>    ISOC and IAB. Why?

> The following seems clear enough to me:

>    The IAB acts as a source of advice and guidance to the Board of
>    Trustees and Officers of the Internet Society concerning technical,
>    architectural, procedural, and (where appropriate) policy matters
>    pertaining to the Internet and its enabling technologies.

Why? What for? It is about time for the IAB to understand how
important it is -- as an "appeal body", and not as a "super IESG".
The IAB is needed for maintaining the integrity of the IETF,
and to make sure that the IESG does what it supposed to do.
I have no idea (due to the poor documentation) whether the IESG
is really listen to the IAB when approving a new WG.

The ISOC is needed just like a monarchy needs a "king" or "queen"
but nothing else. The ISOC is needed to approve the IAB charter,
to appoint a NomCom chair, providing legal protections, 
perhaps as a supreme appeal body, etc.

Even being an "appeal body" can be delegated to a NOMCOM like
(or jury like) committee. But, the IAB should make sure that
the appeal body proceed as it supposed to do.


>> Enclosed is my suggested framework of 1601bis

> I don't see any items in your framework that are both appropriate to
> include in the charter and not included in the existing draft.

Still not clear? Basically,  I would like to suggest to put
back point #5 and especially point #6 of RFC 1160
(http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1160.txt)

    ..............................................................
    The IAB performs the following functions:
    1)   Sets Internet Standards,
    2)   Manages the RFC publication process,
    3)   Reviews the operation of the IETF and IRTF,
    4)   Performs strategic planning for the Internet, identifying
         long-range problems and opportunities,
    5)   Acts as an international technical policy liaison and
         representative for the Internet community, and
    6)   Resolves technical issues which cannot be treated within
         the IETF or IRTF frameworks.
    ..............................................................

regards,

-- 
- Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim --  VLSM-TJT --  http://rms46.vlsm.org/ -
- Da da da ich lieb dich nicht du liebst mich nicht aha -- TRIO82 -