Thoughts on scenario O

While I find scenario O to be preferable amongst the alternatives so far suggested, I find
it lacking in a few areas that I would like to see addressed before I give it support.

The document frequently says that "IAOC will be directly accountable to the IETF
community," but in my quick reading of the document I see nothing that quantifies or
qualifies this accountability in terms of day-to-day process or long-term process.

I would suggest that an increased sense of ownership can be given to the IETF community by
increasing the proportion of of IAOC members selected by NomCom. 4 out of 9 seems
preferable to the current 2 out of 7.

May be I missed something along the way, but was there an initial definition of
"administrative support"?

It seems to me that we are missing a statement about reporting lines and communication
lines. At the moment it is well-known that one of the issues is that it is at times hard
or impossible for an IETF participant or WG chair to get good responsiveness from the
secretariat. While scenario O handles this as a macro issue (repeated problems can be
drawn to the attention of the IAOC who will kick where appropriate) there is no
description of the day-to-day process. Although the details of this process may be left
fot IAOC and IASA to sort out (and may be tuned over the years), I think we need to start
with some assumed lines.

As a small nit: "The members of the IAOC will typically serve two year terms" is followed
by text that describes how 3 out of 7 voting members serve one year terms.

Thanks,
Adrian

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf