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

John C Klensin <> Tue, 16 February 2016 08:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B6891ACD0A for <>; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 00:18:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.906
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gGnLVZiDGMtJ for <>; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 00:18:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B7E51A883C for <>; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 00:18:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1aVapq-0007OR-T2; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 03:18:14 -0500
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 03:18:09 -0500
From: John C Klensin <>
To: Michael StJohns <>,
Subject: Re: draft-klensin-iaoc-member-01 (was: Re: I-D Action: draft-hardie-iaoc-iab-update-00.txt)
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
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 08:18:18 -0000


A few obervations...

--On Monday, February 15, 2016 21:53 -0500 Michael StJohns
<> wrote:

> On 2/15/2016 7:05 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> The question is, is the IETF Chair in the IAOC as "IETF
>> Chair", "IESG Chair", or both? John's analysis is quite right
>> as far as the IESG Chair is concerned. For example, consider
>> the IAOC's job of overseeing the IAD's job of ensuring that
>> tools such as the tracker are in good shape. IESG input there
>> is essential, but it could be conveyed by any Area Director.
>> However, for some other matters, especially policy matters
>> handled by the Trust, the IESG has no special role - they are
>> community matters, where ultimately it's the IETF Chair who
>> calls consensus.

>> So I see a case for the IETF Chair being in the IAOC ex
>> officio as today, and that is*orthogonal*  to the question of
>> an IESG liaison.

The above, to me, is a really strong argument for either
separating the IAOC membership from that of the IETF Trust or
for explicitly changing the IESG so that the IESG Chair and IETF
Chair roles are separated to different people and job
descriptions.  Without one of those splits, I think the "three
jobs" discussion conceptually useful but not helpful as an
actual operational model.

> 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.

> 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.
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

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.   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).
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.