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

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

Hi John -

On 2/16/2016 3:18 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
>> I think your analysis is pretty on target.  Given the above
>> >and the discussion on the IAB chair I would probably do this:
>> >
>> >Have the IAOC consist of
>> >
>> >o The IETF Chair (ex-officio)
> See above.
See my comments at the end of my response wrt to "implicit suggestion".
>
>> >o One member of the IESG selected by and from its membership
>> >for a 1 or 2 year term
>> >o One member of the IAB selected by and from its membership
>> >for a 1 or 2 year term
>> >o One member of the ISOC BOT selected by and from its
>> >membership for a minimum 2 year term with an option to extend
>> >year to year.
> Mike, I'd like to better understand why you want to eliminate
> the ISOC President's presence and responsibility on the iAOC.
AFAICT from the ISOC website, the ISOC President is a member of the ISOC 
BOT.   There is no problem with the ISOC board appointing the ISOC 
president as their representative.  The change would give the ISOC board 
the same flexibility that the IAB is asking for - a choice over who they 
send over - rather than mandating it be the ISOC President.
> Remember that the IASA is an ISOC activity, that the IAD is an
> ISOC employee, that the ISOC President and CEO controls the day
> to day budgeting and financial chain into which the IASA leads
> and, unless we delegate that to an IAOC member and volunteer, is
> the direct, line management, reporting chain of the IAD.   By
> contrast, the function and membership of the ISOC BoT members
> are, as I understand it, much more strategic and oversight.
> They are selected no more specifically for the skills needed in
> IAOC (and the Trust) -- narrow subsets of the IAOC BoT role--
> than, e.g., the IAB Chair and do not have any direct operational
> responsibilities (for IASA or anything else) as part of their
> roles.
Mostly fair points, but as I read the ISOC website most board members do 
have "other duties" related to their presence on the board. (e.g. 
various subcommittee assignments).  And looking at the current IAOC 
board list, I could see a good half or more as being good fits for the 
IAOC.     Again, this is all about giving the ISOC flexibility to manage 
their involvement with the IAOC/IETF trust and not an attempt to remove 
the ISOC President per se.

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



>
>> >o Four members selected by the Nomcom for 2 year terms -
>> >confirmed by both the IAB and IESG (alternately 3 or 6 members
>> >with three year terms)
>> >o The ISOC BOT Chair and the IAB Chair as observers if they
>> >aren't otherwise appointed.
> The ISOC BoT Chair is much like the IAB Chair -- selected from
> the membership of the BoT with the main formal responsibility,
> other than symbolic appearances, being to chair meetings.  Not a
> substitute for the ISOC President and CEO (again, a professional
> with operational and line management responsibilities) at all.
Oops - sorry.  The observer line above was supposed to be the ISOC 
President not ISOC BOT chair.  Its possible that having both (Chair and 
President) as observers might be useful.


>
>> >...
>> >The NOMCOM selected members are currently confirmed by the
>> >IESG.  If we make the above changes, then we require anyone
>> >appointed by the Nomcom to be acceptable to both the IAB and
>> >IESG, but we take away the IAB and IESG's current appointment
>> >power for the two other at large members.   Given that the
>> >IAB, IESG, ISOC and Nomcom are all pulling candidates from
>> >mostly the same pool, it does not make a lot of sense to have
>> >4 different groups appointing at-large members.
> In what way do you see ISOC as pulling from the same pool as the
> others? The IAB does appoint some members of the BoT, but they
> are, if I recall, in a significant minority, few of the other
> members are appointed from active IETF participants, and the IAB
> has occasionally appointed ISOC BoT members who are no longer
> active in the IETF community.

Umm.... the current ISOC appointee to the IAOC is Scott Bradner.  If the 
IAB/IESG/Nomcom wouldn't consider him as part of their pool, they aren't 
doing their job.  Looking backwards the IAOC website doesn't list the 
source of appointment for each member, but mostly I recognize the 
members as being somewhat active in the IETF and therefor likely 
candidates to be considered by any body appointing to the IAOC.

(Reading your comment, I'm not quite sure how you interpreted "same 
pool" - so let's restate it like this for clarity:  "The I* and Nomcom 
all pull candidates for the IAOC from the same pool"   NOT "The IAB,IESG 
and ISOC all pull candidates for their own membership from the same pool")

>
>> >The benefit of staying with the current ex-officio model is to
>> >not have to figure out how to deal with varying term lengths
>> >amongst the ex-officio replacements.  But, if you change the
>> >model, then you have to figure out how to give the IAOC *at
>> >least* the same level of stability that it currently has in
>> >membership terms.
> Makes sense up to a point.  That point involves your assumption
> about "stability" in the IAB Chair.
See my previous emails.  I said that the IAB chair appointment was the 
least stable of any on the IAOC - I would stand on that point. I'm 
thinking that if the IAB appointed the IAB chair as their representative 
to the IAOC and then that person stepped down as IAB chair, they'd still 
continue as an IAOC member.  This is not a "serves at the pleasure of" 
appointment by the IAB chair, but an internal selection of the IAB for 
an external appointment with a term requirement.

>   It may just be another
> reason to get the IAB Chair out of the picture, but, while IAB
> Chairs are normally selected for terms that start at the first
> IETF meeting of the year, terms have been quite variable, with
> some history of Chairs stepping down in the July-September
> window in order to better provide for transition and overlap.
> Sometimes that has even been the plan when someone agrees to
> take the position in circa March.   And, of course, that is
> independent of "serves at the pleasure of..." and the consequent
> potential for mid-term firing (or honored requests to resign).
Anyone can resign at anytime - it's the nature of the beast.  But if you 
state the expectations up front and you excoriate them if they don't 
meet the expectations without a good reason the you tend to get 
participants that stick with it if for no other reason than to keep 
their reputations intact.

> So, if long-term stability of membership is your goal, you want
> the IAB Chair out and, if Brian's implicit suggestion to split
> the IETF and IESG Chair roles were adopted, your'd want the IESG
> Chair out too.

I didn't get the "implicit suggestion" out of what Brian said.  What I 
got was "we need the IETF chair on the IAOC to represent the IETF's 
interests as a whole and it might be nice to have someone else from the 
IESG to represent the IESG's interests directly".  I did not get - 
"we're going to have two chairs - an IETF chair and an IESG chair".  
(Which incidentally is a bad idea IMHO).

Later, Mike