Subject: [Iasa20] draft-hall-iasa2-struct-01

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 16:32:51 +1300

Hi,

I agree with most of what other commenters have said. I also continue to
be worried that this is all ultimately needless bureaucracy, but if there
is consensus to proceed, we'd better do our best to make it work. So
a few more comments:

>    Ultimately, if the IETF community
>    decides to make changes to IASA, those changes will need to be
>    documented in an update to or replacement of RFC 4071.

RFC 4371 and RFC 7691 are also affected, so it would be simpler to cite
BCP 101. I know that changes to the Trust are out of scope here, but I
think you need to mention that the Trust Agreement must also be modified.

I agree with other comments that the proposed Board is too small, and it
needs to be bigger in order to be robust. 3 year terms seem like a good idea.

I'm a little worried by talk of Board committees (except for governance issues
like selecting the Director). The Board must not be sucked into doing the work,
as the IAOC has been.

I also agree with the doubts expressed about the Advisory Council. Yes,
there should be a broadband channel from the community to the Board, just
as there needs to be one to the IESG. It exists; it's called [email-masked],
and it rarely lets us down when IASA or the IESG does something bad.

It would be quite reasonable for the Board to have the *right to create*
an advisory group, but let's not make it mandatory.

(I also remind people that the ISOC Advisory Council exists as a channel
for member companies of ISOC. Money talks. It might be quite reasonable
for IETFAdminOrg to have a sponsors' advisory group, but again, it doesn't
need to be mandatory.)

> 5.  Transition Considerations

Again - note that the Trust transition must be carefully synchronised
(i.e. the sitting Trustees must change the Trust Agreement at the right
moment, thereby unseating themselves and seating the new Trustees).

Regards
   Brian

---

From: "Livingood, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 10:25:11 +0000

On 3/15/18, 3:33 AM, "iasa20 on behalf of Brian E Carpenter" <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:
    I'm a little worried by talk of Board committees (except for governance issues
    like selecting the Director). The Board must not be sucked into doing the work,
    as the IAOC has been.

[JL] Agree - stay more strategic. Nevertheless, I imagine there will still be a need for things like a Finance committee and so on. Not a large number I wouldn't think.

[JL] Seems like a good amount of consensus on this on the list IMO.

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 13:43:22 +0000

> an advisory group, but let's not make it mandatory.

Perhaps with a mandate around a specific issue with a charter and a time
limit.  I think we have running code to support such things!

If we were doing iasa3, I would expect that this WG would be such an advisory
committee.  I am agnostic as to whether the iasa2 created "advisory groups"
are different from General Area WG.  Perhaps the process is simply that the
IETF Chair, as the General AD and member of the Board, simply creates groups.

Actually as I write this, I like this more and more.  It completely reuses
all our running code, and I think is exactly open and inclusive as we would
demand.  No new bureaucracy.

    > moment, thereby unseating themselves and seating the new Trustees).

I think that this is pretty easy to do.  It takes a nomcom cycle and the
"unseating" occurs at 19:32, about 8 minutes for the end of the Plenary
for the March IETF meeting.  Just a enough time for the new group to be
seated, a picture taken, and the mic lines closed.

*ISOC* continues to operate the bank account and pay the secretariat until
the end of the year.  The new entity gets April->December to adjust contracts
and pass a new budget for the following year.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 17:51:42 +0000

> I'm a little worried by talk of Board committees (except for
> governance issues like selecting the Director). The Board must
> not be sucked into doing the work, as the IAOC has been.

The aliens land and give a human engineer a gadget which ends
disease, hunger, and wars.  The engineer thinks, should they give
it to the US president?  maybe the head of the UN?  maybe the
dalai lama?  But first they simply must take it apart and see how
it works.

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 06:48:49 +0000

> dalai lama?  But first they simply must take it apart and see how

This is too long for a tattoo, or I'd have it done before the plenary.

I adore this story.

Spencer

> _______________________________________________
> iasa20 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
>