Hello:
First of all, it is not over until the RFC-Editor sings :^.
Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
The role descriptions of section 2 remains vague. Thus, the relation
with IANA and the RFC Editor will remain vague.
It seems quite clear to me. You might want to suggest alternative wording
that you think is clearer.
It is not about wordsmithing, but more about the fundamentals of
section 2. Sub-section 2.1 is about "architectural oversight in
more detail". However, it is not clear on how to measure the
effectiveness of that sub-section. Thus, it will be not so easy
for a NomCom member to evaluate the performance of the IAB.
The only clue is perhaps the IAB's long queue of work-in-progress.
For example, 1601bis has been more than 4 years in queue. Therefore,
the nature of revising 1601bis must not be easy. Nonetheless, there
will be no organizational improvement until the IAB is willing
continuously to improve itself. See also "Managing The Non-Profit
Organization -- Practices and Principles" (Peter F. Drucker, 1990)
for more details.
"The RFC Editor is chartered by the Internet Society (ISOC)
and the Federal Network Council (FNC)"
That might have been true at one point, and things have changed.
What's the problem with that?
Not much, just $1,295,517
regards,
--
- Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim -- VLSM-TJT -- http://rms46.vlsm.org/ -
Here we are,poised on the precipice of suicide slope-Calvin 20Feb89