Subject: [Mtgvenue] Question on text about change of process

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 10:55:21 -0900

Hi, all:

When we discussed this a few days ago, Brian had proposed the
following text:

 If the IAOC has decided to waive any requirements for a
 particular location, or to consider additional requirements,
 this will also be noted on the web page.

Jari proposed an addition:

 While this document uses these terms and these meanings, it remains
 the responsibility of the IAOC to apply their best judgment. The IAOC
 accepts input and feedback both during the consultation process and
 later (for instance when there are changes in the situation at a
 chosen location). Any appeals remain subject to the provisions of
 [RFC4071].

Is there any objection to either of these additions?

Melinda

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 13:38:47 -0800

> Is there any objection to either of these additions?

The following is a modified version of what I posted earlier; it adds 
the 'consultation' sentence.  There are small differences from Jari's 
form of the text that might be worth considering.

      While this document uses these terms and these meanings, it 
remains the responsibility of the IAOC to apply its best judgment.  The 
IAOC accepts input and feedback both during the consultation process and 
later (for instance when there are changes in the situation at a chosen 
location). Any appeals are subject to the provisions of Section 3.5 
[RFC4071]. Individuals also can raise their concerns by providing input 
to the various IAOC member selection processes by the NOMCOM, IAB and 
IESG, as appropriate. [RFC4071]

Also, considering the substance of the text, I think it's placement in 
Section 1.2 Requirements Language is quite odd.  The new text is about 
appeals and feedback, not requirements.  That is, it's more about actors 
than meeting criteria.

Looking over the document, I think it makes more sense to put the text 
(with some obvious editorial tweaks to make it fit) at the end of:

      Section 4.7.  IAOC Meeting Committee

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 21:48:07 -0800

I guess the question I would ask is whether this will be read (ten years from now) as informative or normative. If informative, no problem. If the IAOC comes under fire for some perceived shortcoming in the execution, it is out of place, as this document doesn't update BCP 101, nor is it intended to. Is the IAOC being given instruction regarding a duty?

Sent from my iPad

> On Feb 2, 2017, at 11:55 AM, Melinda Shore <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi, all:
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mtgvenue mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 08:20:47 +0200

I’m fine with Dave’s variant and placement of the text.

I’m not sure the text changes any special requirement, so I’m not
sure if Fred your question applies here. But the docs are planned
to be BCPs, I believe.

Jari