Re: Revised IAOC Administrative Procedures draft
Adrian, On Sep 12, 2010, at 6:22 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: Bob, Since you ask... This looks good. Thanks. The only nit I can pick is with 5.1 The BCP calls for rules on expenses to be published. The rule you are publishing is that the IAOC and/or its chair can determine the expenses it pays to members of the IAOC for exceptional cases only. I have absolutely no doubt of the integrity of the IAOC and its chair, but this rule is somewhat vague and open to interpretation. It is like using the word appropriate in a protocol spec! Could you look at qualifying this in some way to scope the exceptional circumstances. Perhaps payment of expenses would be made only if the payment has been agreed before the expense was incurred? As the text says, it is for exceptional cases. This is from BCP101. I am in my second term on the IAOC and can't remember a case of this being used. My understanding of the intent of the text in BCP101 was that it could be used in a manner similar to the IETF and IAB chairs discretionary funds. For example, to pay for travel expenses for an IAOC member who didn't have any other support to attend a meeting. Would it help if we said that? I am somewhat hesitant to create detailed rules for something that hasn't happened to date. Bob Cheers, Adrian - Original Message - From: Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com To: IETF discussion list ietf@ietf.org Cc: Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 5:00 PM Subject: Re: Revised IAOC Administrative Procedures draft Hi, To date, I have not seen any comments. The IAOC is putting this on it's agenda for our call next week. Bob On Aug 12, 2010, at 5:56 PM, Bob Hinden wrote: The IAOC solicits feedback on the revised Administrative Procedures draft that is attached. An early draft was sent to the community for comment on 28 May 2010. Many comments received were about how this relates to BCP101, if the IAOC was changing BCP101, creating new rules, or clarifying areas where BCP101 was not clear. The attached draft should clarify these comments. In most cases, it includes the relevant BCP101 text and then describes how the IAOC is implementing this. There are a few cases where BCP101 does not provide specific guidance. In these cases the Administrative Procedures describes what the IAOC is doing as BCP101 requires. The first paragraph of the Administrative Procedures states: RFC 4071 (BCP 101) is the governing authority for IASA, the IAOC and the IAD. It contains clear direction and guidance, but not all the details required for the day-to-day operation of the IETF Administrative Support Activity. BCP 101 section 3.4 specifically tasks the IAOC to decide the details about its decision-making rules and making them public. These Procedures are in response to that requirement, and are further intended to provide clarity for the IAOC and IAD in the execution of operational responsibilities. Further, these procedures are not intended to change BCP 101; that would require another BCP in accordance with section 2.4. We hope this version resolves the concerns raised about the earlier version. Bob Hinden IAOC Chair p.s. I will be on vacation starting next week and will respond to comments when I return. IAOC Administrative Procedures 8-13-2010.pdf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Revised IAOC Administrative Procedures draft
Several interesting responses, thanks. I agree that detailed rules would be onerous and unable to cope with the exceptional circumstances that the condition is intended to cover. On the other hand BCP101 does seem to require some rules. Dave said: There are enough hassles for the IAOC tasks; let's wait to impose stricter rules until we see clear evidence they are needed. OK, I think that provides a way forward. Let's put in place a mechanisms that allows the flexibility (i.e., not change to the under exceptional circumstances and with agreement of the IAOC chair or the IAOC), but remove the risk of surprise by inserting with prior agreement, and supply a way of determining whether stricter rules are needed by requiring annual reporting of expenses paid. Cheers, Adrian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Revised IAOC Administrative Procedures draft
Adrian, On Sep 13, 2010, at 9:39 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: Several interesting responses, thanks. I agree that detailed rules would be onerous and unable to cope with the exceptional circumstances that the condition is intended to cover. On the other hand BCP101 does seem to require some rules. Right, the additional rules we were proposing are: In furtherance of this requirement expenses for members of the IAOC may be reimbursed upon approval of the IAOC Chair, or by a consensus of the IAOC, for exceptional cases only. Dave said: There are enough hassles for the IAOC tasks; let's wait to impose stricter rules until we see clear evidence they are needed. OK, I think that provides a way forward. Let's put in place a mechanisms that allows the flexibility (i.e., not change to the under exceptional circumstances and with agreement of the IAOC chair or the IAOC), but remove the risk of surprise by inserting with prior agreement, and supply a way of determining whether stricter rules are needed by requiring annual reporting of expenses paid. To me exceptional cases also implies unplanned. It would be nice to still have this flexibility. Bob ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Revised IAOC Administrative Procedures draft
On Sep 13, 2010, at 12:39 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: Several interesting responses, thanks. I agree that detailed rules would be onerous and unable to cope with the exceptional circumstances that the condition is intended to cover. On the other hand BCP101 does seem to require some rules. Dave said: There are enough hassles for the IAOC tasks; let's wait to impose stricter rules until we see clear evidence they are needed. OK, I think that provides a way forward. Let's put in place a mechanisms that allows the flexibility (i.e., not change to the under exceptional circumstances and with agreement of the IAOC chair or the IAOC), but remove the risk of surprise by inserting with prior agreement, I am not sure that the prior agreement is a good idea. What may trigger this is something like IAOC member shows up for IAOC event at X, finds that the room reservation (or breakfast or projector or ...) has been canceled (or is for the wrong date or ...) and that this problem can be fixed if they put down a payment immediately. Most of the rest of the IAOC is in transit, and prior agreement in terms of a vote cannot possibly be obtained until it may be too late. The missing item in the normal course of events would be paid for out of the IASA budget. If I were to be placed in that situation, I would go ahead, put the money down, and hope to be reimbursed, prior authorization or no. and supply a way of determining whether stricter rules are needed by requiring annual reporting of expenses paid. I have no problem with that. As a suggestion, let's leave the text alone, and add Any reimbursement of expenses to IAOC members for IAOC expenses will be reported in the minutes and in the annual reports by the IAOC Chair. (Such reports are required, and have been given in plenary.) Marshall Marshall Cheers, Adrian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Revised IAOC Administrative Procedures draft
I've generally stayed out of this discussion, but let me offer a word of support to Bob, et al re maintaining some flexibility. There are two very strong protections already in place in this system. First, the operation of the IAOC -- and IASA -- are fully documented and visible. If the IAOC does something inappropriate, it will become visible and everyone will learn from it. Second, bills get paid through ISOC's normal processes. ISOC has a set of controls in place to document expenses and make sure they follow the expected set of rules. In addition to these strong protections, a questionable expenditure, even if it's several thousand dollars, isn't going to go irreparable harm to the IETF or ISOC. Trying to prescribe a strict set of rules in addition to these protections is counterproductive and may remove flexibility that's needed for the benefit of the IETF at some future time. The IETF's success, and, indeed, the success of the whole Internet, has come from maximum flexibility and minimum a priori rules and permissions. We can easily afford to wait for the IAOC to screw up in some egregious fashion before we have to draft and administer rules to prevent subsequent abuses. In the meantime, let the IAOC do its job on behalf of the community. Steve Full disclosure: I was on the committee that formulated the IAOC and I served on the IAOC for a period of time. On Sep 13, 2010, at 1:16 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: On Sep 13, 2010, at 12:39 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: Several interesting responses, thanks. I agree that detailed rules would be onerous and unable to cope with the exceptional circumstances that the condition is intended to cover. On the other hand BCP101 does seem to require some rules. Dave said: There are enough hassles for the IAOC tasks; let's wait to impose stricter rules until we see clear evidence they are needed. OK, I think that provides a way forward. Let's put in place a mechanisms that allows the flexibility (i.e., not change to the under exceptional circumstances and with agreement of the IAOC chair or the IAOC), but remove the risk of surprise by inserting with prior agreement, I am not sure that the prior agreement is a good idea. What may trigger this is something like IAOC member shows up for IAOC event at X, finds that the room reservation (or breakfast or projector or ...) has been canceled (or is for the wrong date or ...) and that this problem can be fixed if they put down a payment immediately. Most of the rest of the IAOC is in transit, and prior agreement in terms of a vote cannot possibly be obtained until it may be too late. The missing item in the normal course of events would be paid for out of the IASA budget. If I were to be placed in that situation, I would go ahead, put the money down, and hope to be reimbursed, prior authorization or no. and supply a way of determining whether stricter rules are needed by requiring annual reporting of expenses paid. I have no problem with that. As a suggestion, let's leave the text alone, and add Any reimbursement of expenses to IAOC members for IAOC expenses will be reported in the minutes and in the annual reports by the IAOC Chair. (Such reports are required, and have been given in plenary.) Marshall Marshall Cheers, Adrian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Revised IAOC Administrative Procedures draft
On 9/12/2010 6:22 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: I have absolutely no doubt of the integrity of the IAOC and its chair, but this rule is somewhat vague and open to interpretation. It is like using the word appropriate in a protocol spec! Could you look at qualifying this in some way to scope the exceptional circumstances. An interesting challenge when writing rules about human behavior -- such as operation of a committee -- is to choose the right balance between constraint and flexibility. Make things too precise (and therefore constrained) and it's a bureaucratic nightmare. Make them too flexible and they are subject to abuse. For a technical standards body, we find it oddly challenging to follow overly precise rules. While this invites some danger of personal excesses, this particular topic so far does not seem inclined toward them. There are enough hassles for the IAOC tasks; let's wait to impose stricter rules until we see clear evidence they are needed. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Revised IAOC Administrative Procedures draft
Bob, Since you ask... This looks good. The only nit I can pick is with 5.1 The BCP calls for rules on expenses to be published. The rule you are publishing is that the IAOC and/or its chair can determine the expenses it pays to members of the IAOC for exceptional cases only. I have absolutely no doubt of the integrity of the IAOC and its chair, but this rule is somewhat vague and open to interpretation. It is like using the word appropriate in a protocol spec! Could you look at qualifying this in some way to scope the exceptional circumstances. Perhaps payment of expenses would be made only if the payment has been agreed before the expense was incurred? Cheers, Adrian - Original Message - From: Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com To: IETF discussion list ietf@ietf.org Cc: Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 5:00 PM Subject: Re: Revised IAOC Administrative Procedures draft Hi, To date, I have not seen any comments. The IAOC is putting this on it's agenda for our call next week. Bob On Aug 12, 2010, at 5:56 PM, Bob Hinden wrote: The IAOC solicits feedback on the revised Administrative Procedures draft that is attached. An early draft was sent to the community for comment on 28 May 2010. Many comments received were about how this relates to BCP101, if the IAOC was changing BCP101, creating new rules, or clarifying areas where BCP101 was not clear. The attached draft should clarify these comments. In most cases, it includes the relevant BCP101 text and then describes how the IAOC is implementing this. There are a few cases where BCP101 does not provide specific guidance. In these cases the Administrative Procedures describes what the IAOC is doing as BCP101 requires. The first paragraph of the Administrative Procedures states: RFC 4071 (BCP 101) is the governing authority for IASA, the IAOC and the IAD. It contains clear direction and guidance, but not all the details required for the day-to-day operation of the IETF Administrative Support Activity. BCP 101 section 3.4 specifically tasks the IAOC to decide the details about its decision-making rules and making them public. These Procedures are in response to that requirement, and are further intended to provide clarity for the IAOC and IAD in the execution of operational responsibilities. Further, these procedures are not intended to change BCP 101; that would require another BCP in accordance with section 2.4. We hope this version resolves the concerns raised about the earlier version. Bob Hinden IAOC Chair p.s. I will be on vacation starting next week and will respond to comments when I return. IAOC Administrative Procedures 8-13-2010.pdf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Revised IAOC Administrative Procedures draft
Adrian, I have absolutely no doubt of the integrity of the IAOC and its chair, but this rule is somewhat vague and open to interpretation. It is like using the word appropriate in a protocol spec! Yes, true, but this is really a rare exception. In the 1.5 years that I've been on the IAOC, I don't remember a case where expenses were made and reimbursed. That makes it hard to be more precise here. Could you look at qualifying this in some way to scope the exceptional circumstances. Perhaps payment of expenses would be made only if the payment has been agreed before the expense was incurred? If the IAOC members wanted to claim expenses that should not be reimbursed, this rule would be easy to circumvent. If this is a concern, then I'd suggest that the IAOC simply publishes what expenses were paid. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- I confirm today what I denied yesterday.Anonymous Politician. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Revised IAOC Administrative Procedures draft
On 2010-09-13 02:21, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: Adrian, I have absolutely no doubt of the integrity of the IAOC and its chair, but this rule is somewhat vague and open to interpretation. It is like using the word appropriate in a protocol spec! Yes, true, but this is really a rare exception. In the 1.5 years that I've been on the IAOC, I don't remember a case where expenses were made and reimbursed. That makes it hard to be more precise here. Could you look at qualifying this in some way to scope the exceptional circumstances. Perhaps payment of expenses would be made only if the payment has been agreed before the expense was incurred? If the IAOC members wanted to claim expenses that should not be reimbursed, this rule would be easy to circumvent. If this is a concern, then I'd suggest that the IAOC simply publishes what expenses were paid. Yes, RFC 4071 (BCP 101) says The IAOC shall set and publish rules covering reimbursement of expenses, and such reimbursement shall generally be for exceptional cases only. iirc this was originally put in to cover corner cases such as an IAOC member suddenly finding him/herself between jobs and needing to attend a meeting, or something like that. But it does appear that the IAOC is obliged to publish rules. I suggest doing that as a separate document. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Revised IAOC Administrative Procedures draft
Hi, To date, I have not seen any comments. The IAOC is putting this on it's agenda for our call next week. Bob On Aug 12, 2010, at 5:56 PM, Bob Hinden wrote: The IAOC solicits feedback on the revised Administrative Procedures draft that is attached. An early draft was sent to the community for comment on 28 May 2010. Many comments received were about how this relates to BCP101, if the IAOC was changing BCP101, creating new rules, or clarifying areas where BCP101 was not clear. The attached draft should clarify these comments. In most cases, it includes the relevant BCP101 text and then describes how the IAOC is implementing this. There are a few cases where BCP101 does not provide specific guidance. In these cases the Administrative Procedures describes what the IAOC is doing as BCP101 requires. The first paragraph of the Administrative Procedures states: RFC 4071 (BCP 101) is the governing authority for IASA, the IAOC and the IAD. It contains clear direction and guidance, but not all the details required for the day-to-day operation of the IETF Administrative Support Activity. BCP 101 section 3.4 specifically tasks the IAOC to decide the details about its decision-making rules and making them public. These Procedures are in response to that requirement, and are further intended to provide clarity for the IAOC and IAD in the execution of operational responsibilities. Further, these procedures are not intended to change BCP 101; that would require another BCP in accordance with section 2.4. We hope this version resolves the concerns raised about the earlier version. Bob Hinden IAOC Chair p.s. I will be on vacation starting next week and will respond to comments when I return. IAOC Administrative Procedures 8-13-2010.pdf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
