A draft of an IESG charter

[Brian E Carpenter]

> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iesg-charter-00.txt

Harald,

Thanks. We've been waiting for this since Phill Gross was IETF Chair!

Somewhere: I think you need to describe the voting rules in outline,
or make a statement that the IESG decides its own voting rules.

Somewhere else: I think you need a short section on the ADs and IESG's 
role in appeals (by reference to 2026).

You might consider adding something like "3.6 Openness and confidentiality"
from RFC 2850.

> 2. The composition of the IESG

I think you have forgotten to list the IAB Chair and the
IETF Executive Director as Ex Officio members. You also need to mention
that only the ADs get to vote.

> 3.1 Working group creation
...
>    ...Normally,
>    there will be communication with the community of interest for the
>    working group too.

I find this too weak. This is a pretty fundamental requirement, not
a "normally". Also, there should be a reference to the public review
via the ietf-announce and new-work lists. (For those who don't know,
new-work is a list shared with several other standards bodies for
mutual information about new activities.)

...
>    If an AD determines that it is needed, he can take the initiative to
>    create a working group.

Several issues with this sentence:

1. Should be "he or she".

2. It reads as if the AD does it alone. Shouldn't it say
   ...can initiate the process for forming a working group.

3. I would add a second sentence:
   Alternatively, the initiative may come from the IETF community.

4. I think this should all be at the beginning of 3.1, not the end.

> 3.2 Working group management
...
>    When a WG finds that it is essential that work gets done which is not
>    on its charter, the AD is responsible for figuring out whether to add
>    it to their charter, add it to another group's charter, task someone
>    outside the WG to work on it, or initiate creation of another WG.

Shouldn't this be qualified by "with the approval of the IESG"?

I think it would be reasonable to add that ADs consult with the IAB
when they have architectural concerns with a given WG.

> 4.2.2 Informational and Experimental

It seems to me there is something missing here, along the lines
of
   In some cases the IESG itself may recommend the publication
   of Informational or Experimental documents that were originally
   submitted to the standards track.

Also do you want to mention that the IESG may insert an IESG Note
in informational or experimental RFCs?

> 5. The IESG role in area management

I would add a general note at the end of this section that 
ADs consult about their areas with IESG and IAB members as needed.

> 7. Security considerations
> 
>    The security of the Internet depends on standards giving proper
>    thought to security.  Apart from that, there seem to be no
>    considerations of security relevant to this memo.

What about DOS attacks on the IESG list launched using SMTP ?

   Brian