Re: 1601bis: The Charter of IAB

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Hi Rahmat,

I can read your words, but I really can't understand your concerns. You seem
to be worrying about dragons that I can't see. Happy New Year, anyway.

  Brian

"Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" wrote:
> 
> 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 -