Re: Revised IAOC Administrative Procedures draft

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Mon, 13 September 2010 16:40 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A9C93A69F3 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 09:40:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.954
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.954 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.214, BAYES_20=-0.74]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id axKM80x5ySMw for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 09:40:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (asmtp1.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.248]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70D453A6A6F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 09:39:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o8DGdWgY002129 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 17:39:32 +0100
Received: from your029b8cecfe (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o8DGdVQT002123 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 17:39:32 +0100
Message-ID: <EE763784C948455D9CCBA01D363F3D73@your029b8cecfe>
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <3D5CA93C-1A93-4AEA-B679-C15E6FCBC26D@gmail.com> <F1BD8DF0-6511-4A59-B3D5-8276FA4A6351@gmail.com> <A852AD08368B4F6B949E88DEEB02EF2C@your029b8cecfe> <4C8E515A.5060608@dcrocker.net>
Subject: Re: Revised IAOC Administrative Procedures draft
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 17:39:25 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type="response"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 16:40:45 -0000

Several interesting responses, thanks.

I agree that detailed rules would be onerous and unable to cope with the 
exceptional circumstances that the condition is intended to cover.

On the other hand BCP101 does seem to require some rules.

Dave said:

> There are enough hassles for the IAOC tasks; let's wait to impose stricter 
> rules until we see clear evidence they are needed.

OK, I think that provides a way forward. Let's put in place a mechanisms 
that allows the flexibility (i.e., not change to the "under exceptional 
circumstances" and "with agreement of the IAOC chair or the IAOC"), but 
remove the risk of surprise by inserting "with prior agreement", and supply 
a way of determining whether stricter rules are needed by requiring "annual 
reporting of expenses paid".

Cheers,
Adrian