Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: <draft-iab-rfc3677bis> (IETF ISOC Board of Trustee Appointment Procedures)

Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net> Sun, 28 February 2016 20:06 UTC

Return-Path: <mstjohns@comcast.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D019A1A910E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Feb 2016 12:06:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.006
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.006 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5_Xid5iI5mwv for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Feb 2016 12:06:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-01v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-01v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 412951A8ACD for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 28 Feb 2016 12:06:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resomta-ch2-16v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.112]) by resqmta-ch2-01v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id Pw5i1s0022S2Q5R01w6b37; Sun, 28 Feb 2016 20:06:35 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.113] ([69.255.115.150]) by resomta-ch2-16v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id Pw6b1s0093Em2Kp01w6b6E; Sun, 28 Feb 2016 20:06:35 +0000
Subject: Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: <draft-iab-rfc3677bis> (IETF ISOC Board of Trustee Appointment Procedures)
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <20160224175935.21103.69618.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAC4RtVDpMsFuSMHPvkT2vXngGJkNsWDqL-g1EipcCUNjqa2Ssg@mail.gmail.com> <56CDFF39.7000603@gmail.com> <4572E392-3E57-45C4-9CBF-86B3E2E0982A@cisco.com> <CALaySJJfyikA7o5CEiQvbjNF-d7EzUi-TTsTWnxo2yb_jBibag@mail.gmail.com> <56CE6E2B.6020903@gmail.com> <6CB3AE29-C0DD-45B3-858C-2C3A44106ED5@gmail.com> <56D1FDD2.5030906@gmail.com> <CAC4RtVDvN8fF4ZAH3-2MA4h3FTbUd37NQsy484eoCXy5MBhoGA@mail.gmail.com> <A49865510140628ADEB3DCB6@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <B5ECD878-81C0-42DE-9170-CAE0529402B6@gmail.com> <56D34119.2030806@gmail.com>
From: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <56D3534D.4040107@comcast.net>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 15:06:37 -0500
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: <56D34119.2030806@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1456689995; bh=7ovoXfoZdvgyQ0hQH4qyE5ozaW2/iLDjgfqDh7iodW4=; h=Received:Received:Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=KvSSyEQ16cbRuholjr8hafkUgd0sgmhnOyR1c7f7qwv3zpBYhwsxDrWpcY6Ar4kCF mFoSNYZlfyir/PB0J89WQ/CasE32wIr+N7P8P202gXAAgsbKe0hGor81+kcRH9+oAW XONCjcRmgkV+3QezObe/bU+j3Ej/oFWgPXfw5H6y8N+YBj6FHh1ImkMKQIG7z8xXCO dqq9VW4AuspwJanymfIZ9fPbqCZY2zFtgEmyDE/lDE5qQ1pPZD7d9ilJh12JTi1rmV WnrU80qGx6ix5Rus59SWlP2MCekTe0TPlWxR/M49ft4hXvmcnTrz8YuEa1ehBGXpgZ KtIdlaZzkcjvg==
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Jw3fiO1NyZrWPWiU-PcNtSgN-uY>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 20:06:38 -0000

On 2/28/2016 1:48 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Well, OK.
>
> NEW NEW:
>    If ISOC further modifies [ISOC-By-Laws] concerning the
>    number of IETF appointments to the ISOC Board or the
>    timing thereof, the IAB may make corresponding
>    modifications to the frequency and the timing of the
>    processes embodied in this document. Such changes will
>    be announced via an IAB statement. The IAB must then
>    propose a corresponding update to this document within
>    one year.
>
> Regards
>     Brian


I'm always somewhat pained by toothless requirements.  E.g.  what's the 
downside if the IAB fails propose an update, or if they drag out the 
completion of the update for several years because other things are more 
important?

The above is either too much or too little.  So if its too much then:

Replace 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 with:  "The IAB shall appoint the IETF-sourced 
members to the ISOC board with the terms and schedule for such members 
as described by the ISOC charter, and as they are notified by the ISOC 
board of IETF-sourced vacancies."

[I see no reason for the BCP to go into the details of which years as a) 
its not under the IETF's control, and b) it's subject to change if the 
ISOC board needs to move things around]

If its too little then:

replace 3.4.2 with the Brian's text (replacing "proposed" with 
"completed") and adding:  "If the IAB fails to complete a change to the 
BCP within 1 year, then their power to appoint the IETF-sourced members 
of the ISOC board shall lapse  and such power shall devolve upon the 
most recently seated IETF nominations committee. The confirmation of 
such appointments shall remain with the IESG.  The power to make such 
appointments shall revert to the IAB upon publication of the updated BCP."

[Basically, if the IAB doesn't have time to complete the BCP, then it 
probably doesn't have time to deal with the ISOC appointments]


To be clear, I'd go with the "too much" alternative above and just say 
that the appointments are made on the schedule described by the ISOC.

On the other hand, noting that the language in the rationale section 
(1.2) is no longer a completely accurate statement of reality (cf 
appointment of IAOC members), it may make sense to re-address who should 
be doing these appointments.  Perhaps the IAOC is a better body?  Or 
this can be folded into the Nomcom process?   Not making any 
recommendations here, just noting that if we're updating this document, 
we should make sure it's all valid as of the date of publication.

Later, Mike


>
> On 29/02/2016 05:11, Bob Hinden wrote:
>>> On Feb 27, 2016, at 12:39 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --On Saturday, February 27, 2016 12:35 -0800 Barry Leiba
>>> <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> NEW:
>>>>>    If ISOC further modifies [ISOC-By-Laws] concerning the
>>>>>    number of IETF appointments to the ISOC Board or the
>>>>>    timing thereof, the IAB may make corresponding
>>>>>    modifications to the frequency and the timing of the
>>>>>    processes embodied in this document, pending any
>>>>>    modification to this document. Such changes will be
>>>>>    announced via an IAB statement.
>>>> I think a change such as that would be good.
>>> I agree but, if the intent is that the IAB modifications and
>>> statement are a stopgap, to avoid discontinuities, etc., but
>>> that the IAB is still expected to move expeditiously to get the
>>> BCP updated, that could be said a lot more clearly.
>> I agree.  The IAB shouldn’t delay it’s board appointment until this document is updated, but it should do an update in a reasonable amount of time.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Bob
>>
>>