At 10:02 AM 3/28/2013, John C Klensin wrote: > For me, it seems especially odd when >compared to the liaison position to the ICANN Board. Both are >very important to the IETF community. Both involve >organizations with which the IETF has a complicated and >multidimensional relationship. Both involve issues that are >very sensitive. Yet the IAB conducted an open call for >volunteers, followed by an open call for community comments, for >one position and simply announced the appointment for the other. >I think an explanation of the difference would be helpful for >everyone.
The ICANN position of IETF Liaison is defined in the ICANN charter and has a specific fixed term, as such it gets handled via a call for volunteers and an appointment by the IAB. AFAIK - there is no "IETF appoints a liaison to the ITU-T board" position defined. I believe the actual "liaison" status is between the IETF/ISOC and the ITU-T and the IETF ITU-T liaison acts more as a point of contact than anything else. I find it telling that RFC6756 doesn't even mention a role for a specified person designated as liaison. I would assume this accounts for the difference. (Formal role vs informal/ad hoc role). Mike
