Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050203000708.0689eeb0@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 00:36:11 +0100
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, ietf@ietf.org
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Subject: Re: some pending IASA issues
In-Reply-To: <13E6CD5B306CC5277F2047BB@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126>
References: <6.1.2.0.2.20050129115602.0378ccd0@mail.utel.net>
 <13E6CD5B306CC5277F2047BB@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-5B5B776

Harald,
I have serious moral concerns accepting your response below.

At 10:10 31/01/2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>>3. Regional representation. Most of the Internet organizations make sure
>>their BoD is regionally distributed. This is not appropriate for a
>>technical entity, however IAOC is an administrative body. I would suggest
>>the Draft Section 4 to include a recommendation (not an obligation) that
>>all the main parts of the world are represented at the IAOC. Cost: 2
>>lines to be added.
>
>The IAOC is an administrative body for a technical entity. So "not 
>appropriate" applies.

This answer would only make sense if technical competences were required 
due to the technical nature of the entity.

But the Draft says: "While there are no hard rules regarding how the IAB 
and the IESG should select members of the IAOC, such appointees need not be 
current IAB or IESG members (and probably should not be, if only to avoid 
overloading the existing leadership).  The IAB and IESG should choose 
people with some knowledge of contracts and financial procedures, who are 
familiar with the administrative support needs of the IAB, the IESG, or the 
IETF standards process."

This means that no technical competence is required. But legal and 
financial abilities are required. These abilities are required to contract 
tasks all over the world. I therefore asked that ISOC Chapters are possibly 
called upon to assist. Your response is:

>The IETF has never attempted to have an organization along geographical 
>lines. ISOC has such an organization, but that bears no formal 
>relationship with the standards process. This document is not about 
>changing the standards process.

You object again on technical grounds. Yet the need is not for technical 
but for legal and financial competences. The Internet standard process has 
nothing to do with legal local competence, or wise assistance in selecting 
a local contractor or cutting a good and cheaper contract.

The concern is that you do not want to use the ISOC capacity to better 
legally and financially manage/advise the IASA, also that you favor the 
possibility to influence the choice of contractors location through the 
choice of IAOC members. I think there is there a source of COI and protests 
for lack of transparency.

I therefore insist for the above paragraph to be slightly modified in using 
"[The IAB and IESG should chose] people from the various regions of the 
world [with some knowledge of contracts ....]".

Please, consider that this document will probably not be reviewed before a 
few years and that such issues which will gain importance over the coming 
years would be far more difficult to address as a specific update than 
through a Draft amendment.

jfc