Re: Revised IAOC Administrative Procedures draft

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Sun, 12 September 2010 13:22 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 5FB0F3A688B for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Sep 2010 06:22:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.622
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.622 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.624, BAYES_50=0.001, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001]
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 Qxt8Cl3QqAeb for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Sep 2010 06:22:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (asmtp3.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.159]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A64933A688A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Sep 2010 06:22:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o8CDMlvO005165; Sun, 12 Sep 2010 14:22:47 +0100
Received: from your029b8cecfe (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o8CDMklU005161; Sun, 12 Sep 2010 14:22:47 +0100
Message-ID: <A852AD08368B4F6B949E88DEEB02EF2C@your029b8cecfe>
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
References: <3D5CA93C-1A93-4AEA-B679-C15E6FCBC26D@gmail.com> <F1BD8DF0-6511-4A59-B3D5-8276FA4A6351@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Revised IAOC Administrative Procedures draft
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 14:22:38 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type="original"
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
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
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: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 13:22:27 -0000

Bob,

Since you ask...

This looks good.
The only nit I can pick is with 5.1

The BCP calls for rules on expenses to be published.
The "rule" you are publishing is that the IAOC and/or its chair can 
determine the expenses it pays to members of the IAOC "for exceptional cases 
only."

I have absolutely no doubt of the integrity of the IAOC and its chair, but 
this rule is somewhat vague and open to interpretation. It is like using the 
word "appropriate" in a protocol spec!

Could you look at qualifying this in some way to scope the exceptional 
circumstances. Perhaps payment of expenses would be made only if the payment 
has been agreed before the expense was incurred?

Cheers,
Adrian

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Hinden" <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
To: "IETF discussion list" <ietf@ietf.org>
Cc: "Bob Hinden" <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 5:00 PM
Subject: Re: Revised IAOC Administrative Procedures draft


> Hi,
>
> To date, I have not seen any comments.  The IAOC is putting this on it's 
> agenda for our call next week.
>
> Bob
>
>
> On Aug 12, 2010, at 5:56 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
>
>> The IAOC solicits feedback on the revised Administrative Procedures draft 
>> that is attached.
>>
>> An early draft was sent to the community for comment on 28 May 2010. 
>> Many comments received were about how this relates to BCP101, if the IAOC 
>> was changing BCP101, creating new rules, or clarifying areas where BCP101 
>> was not clear.  The attached draft should clarify these comments.
>>
>> In most cases, it includes the relevant BCP101 text and then describes 
>> how the IAOC is implementing this.  There are a few cases where BCP101 
>> does not provide specific guidance.  In these cases the Administrative 
>> Procedures describes what the IAOC is doing as BCP101 requires.
>>
>> The first paragraph of the Administrative Procedures states:
>>
>>   RFC 4071 (BCP 101) is the governing authority for IASA, the IAOC and
>>   the IAD. It contains clear direction and guidance, but not all the
>>   details required for the day-to-day operation of the IETF
>>   Administrative Support Activity. BCP 101 section 3.4 specifically
>>   tasks the IAOC to decide the details about its decision-making rules
>>   and making them public. These Procedures are in response to that
>>   requirement, and are further intended to provide clarity for the IAOC
>>   and IAD in the execution of operational responsibilities. Further,
>>   these procedures are not intended to change BCP 101; that would
>>   require another BCP in accordance with section 2.4.
>>
>> We hope this version resolves the concerns raised about the earlier 
>> version.
>>
>> Bob Hinden
>> IAOC Chair
>>
>> p.s. I will be on vacation starting next week and will respond to 
>> comments when I return.
>>
>> <IAOC Administrative Procedures 8-13-2010.pdf>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>