Re: draft-klensin-iaoc-member-01 (was: Re: I-D Action: draft-hardie-iaoc-iab-update-00.txt)

Brian E Carpenter <> Tue, 16 February 2016 19:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B69C1B35F2 for <>; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:25:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nNJzeTD45rbN for <>; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:25:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A60A81B3617 for <>; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:25:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id fy10so68703290pac.1 for <>; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:25:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4S7YeY0pO17Hp3R+iJ38ooUum/275r/H4w3RenNKRAs=; b=v/KaX/UgrsK+4SxmNLrEREvoAyUVkNKVUkeGbxOjF9tgU3ebfTbC2SjY8qmXl73YKs ofGBy28JuW7JmG9jPqWmcla4F4w/ZXJ06U7MJwjr4bnPvfVgFSLrVc0+MH0fP2cGG1Y+ ewlXIlFcGGcOrhtDkK4uT7XHWceWeNCaYZb6TjZrqPG+BgRBjFPe+roZ13sImsbO2DJo /nZ4G2DsYqgvCaDCHFkIhPLapK6F4jtcNppom2wAqEqqm8bELj4X1dk+pNiAzHHhnlct P20S9KuMwfMjHomXz/nNRIaaQySVqSyhwamuxKB7BerLLLOzQ3Dszp0DaT5M/AGAlA1E ufUQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=4S7YeY0pO17Hp3R+iJ38ooUum/275r/H4w3RenNKRAs=; b=JGgfPDaX20BMdKpYrGQy8m+QGgI+/r8F2iD2bB7BYFEnlydbLzAGrDGK2wWyjdUdzb tBDtWiKJHXkR++x9h/SSowX/mlbVHhkcmKQfW63UYkbAhDXiQP0eil9njdcuevFYbvzK prrxux9Flz7n3SI7f5+fK+Tg2546UVZV/VCh4uNnEQwL2wPw70UuxeGXP9SHpKZPBPH4 jqdzhRz80uH4rvmHO4UrBJDw2ANPsT8LiEdw0pYWp83c5biks8KAOuxtLHDfwMXHLUFW UxRG3ytx4tMItp4sawyI+/GFa8j0EmfDVfeKmgyYyZbZxpYc42gnmrQYrhcIdeCVtaVq sZcw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YORka+TsN04m1D9+cB0Vjozfpolczg0eogsta4LATMJjuXplJYNaTD8zeONkSka7yw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id gn8mr33250229pac.64.1455650703401; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:25:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:666a:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:666a:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by with ESMTPSA id z7sm47521600pfi.19.2016. for <> (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:25:01 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: draft-klensin-iaoc-member-01 (was: Re: I-D Action: draft-hardie-iaoc-iab-update-00.txt)
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 08:25:04 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 19:25:05 -0000

I'm trying to avoid repeating myself, so I won't comment on everything.

On 17/02/2016 06:13, Michael StJohns wrote:


> (Basically, when I looked at this I assumed that the three organizations - IESG, IAB and ISOC - should have similar treatments
> unless there was a good reason not to.

To the contrary, I think there are four organizations involved (IETF, IESG, IAB and ISOC)
that have very distinctive roles, and there is no reason to look for symmetry.

> There may be a reason from the IAOC's point of view to require the ISOC president in the
> ISOC slot, but then again there may not - I'd like to hear from them on this point.

Well, I don't think that it's really the IAOC's call.

> If not, then giving the ISOC BOT the
> ability to pick their representative seems a useful tweak to the current rules).

It isn't the ISOC BOT. It's the ISOC acting as an employer and funding agency. So
I agree with John on this: the ISOC President/CEO is the right person.

I should also clarify that I'm not proposing actually splitting the job of IESG
Chair from that of IETF Chair. I'm simply observing that they are two very different
roles, and speaking for the IESG on admin matters is different from speaking
for the IETF as a whole on admin or policy matters.