A question about the role of the IESG

john.loughney at nokia.com john.loughney at nokia.com
Tue Jan 7 09:03:16 CET 2003

Hi Jonne,

> I guess, I really struggle here trying to make my point. I 
> not trying to compare IETF to any other SDO as such, and not 
> trying to criticize the need for a management/coordinating 
> structure. What I have noticed is that IESG has _relatively_ 
> much power over the IETF standardization process, 
> _relatively_ to the power IESG reports little to the 
> community, and the IESG is not directly *elected*, but rather 
> *selected* by rather unique process. What I am trying to 
> understand - personally - here is how was the NomCom process 
> created (opposed to e.g. elections, ISOC nominations, or 
> anything else), why has the IESG been given the role of the 
> guardian of the IETF process and the IETF output (vs. e.g. a 
> mere coordinating role between areas/WGs), and why wasn't 
> reporting seen that necessary. 
> (I know there are certain efforts to enhance the reporting 
> part, e.g. ID Tracker. However, this is rather recent, and 
> IESG minutes are still just a list of results rather than 
> something comparable to for instance the WG minutes.)

I may be putting words in your mouth - tell me if they are the
wrong words.  It seems that you are asking how did the IESG
(and even, perhaps the IAB) get the powers it is currently exercising.

It seems that several other people have been asking for a documentation
of the IESG powers in an IESG charter.  Harold has submitted the
following document, which deserves some discussion, in my opinion:

There has been some discussion of the 'Kobe incident' where
power was transfered from the IAB to the IESG.  

best regards,

More information about the Problem-statement mailing list