Subject: Re: AdminRest: New version of IASA BCP document available

From: [email-masked] (scott bradner)
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:24:51 -0500 (EST)

> [email-masked] (scott bradner) writes:
> > one example from section 3.1 -
> >    Although the approval of the ISOC President/CEO or ISOC Board of
> >    Trustees may be required for some contracts, their review should be
> >    limited to protecting ISOC's liabilities and financial stability.
> >
> > This says that the ISOC president (or accountant or lawyer) is not
> > permitted to tell the IAD that they know that a proposed contractor is a
> > dead beat and never gets anything done - or that they spotted a flaw in
> > the bid that could double the cost - that seems very silly indeed - I
> > see no reason that the ISOC folk can not be full partners in evaluation
> > processes with the IAD (and IAOC) making the final decisions - anything
> > less is willfully putting the IAD, IAOC and ISOC in a non optimum place.
> > I understand that the general desire is for the IAD to operate without
> > nitpicking from the ISOC folk but an bright line of separate thinking
> > zones is far from the best way to do that
> 
> I think the key point here is to distinguish the kinds of comments
> ISOC can make--which I agree should be relatively unconstrained
> from the grounds on which they can refuse to approve, which
> should be tightly constrained. I think this can be easily
> solved by slightly wordsmithing the last sentence, to read:
> 
>      approval may not be denied for any reason other than
>      protecting ISOC's liabilities and financial stability.

I think that my main point was not clear enough - the current
wording implies that ISOC folk (accountant, President/CEO, lawyer,
etc - but not BoT) are not permitted be part of the RFP response review 
process and are not primitted to warn the IAD and IAOC that the contractor
they want to sign up has a bad track record or that the proposed
contract itself has a significant legal flaw - this seems basically
broken to me

I was NOT addressing the question that ekr's proposed
wording talks to  (if the ISOC has to agree to a contract that the
IAD/IAOC have recommended )

I was trying to address the RFP response review phase of the process 
speciifcally I think that the ISOC staff & President/CEO need to be
in the review loop.  I think the document must not exclude that
possibility.

ekr's suggested wording is fine with one (to me important) addition -
the proposed contract needs to fit within the agreed-to budget

Scott

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 10:01:19 -0800

Scott,

> > zones is far from the best way to do that

After the BCP has the full support and approval of the IETF community,
the IASA and IAOC will be formed, and it will be part of the ISOC
organization.  I'm concerned that what you're suggesting here is just
not good organizational practice.  At the end of the day, functional
differentiation is necessary.  The IAOC and IASA have a task: the work
needed for IETF operations to be accomplished, which include the
full review and decision-making on RFPs at each cycle.  The ISOC "folks" 
(BoT) has its own manifold tasks. IAOC and IASA do not perform the ISOC BoT's
tasks, and the ISOC BoT should not peform IAOC/IASA tasks.  It's not a
matter of ruling out informal discussions, but of making
organizational clarity.  We're working toward a shared specification
that the ISOC President/CEO and BoT representatives have voting
representation in the RFP decisions, and that is the organizational
structure.  Saying that there doesn't need to be an bright line, that
there doesn't need to be functional differentiation, is contrary to
our goals in working on all this structure in the first place.

Allison

---

From: Carl Malamud <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:33:57 -0800 (PST)

> > >    limited to protecting ISOC's liabilities and financial stability.

 [many other messages]

> our goals in working on all this structure in the first place.

How about this instead:

Although the approval of the ISOC President/CEO or ISOC Board of
Trustees may be required for some contracts, in order to provide
a single point of focus in support of the IASA, primary responsibility
for the evaluation, review, and negotiation of contracts and other 
IETF administrative and support agreements shall rest with the IAOC.

This provides a simple metric ("primary responsibility for the
evaluation, review and negotiation ....") on which corner cases
that arise in the future can be judged.

Regards,

Carl

---

From: [email-masked] (scott bradner)
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 14:52:50 -0500 (EST)

> IETF administrative and support agreements shall rest with the IAOC.

works for me

Scott

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 15:02:30 -0500

>IETF administrative and support agreements shall rest with the IAOC.

This looks good to me, Carl.  It captures the intent without being 
overly legalistic or proscriptive.

Margaret

---

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 12:17:56 -0800

Carl,

> IETF administrative and support agreements shall rest with the IAOC.

I like your wording.  I think it supports forming a well-structured
overall ISOC organization, as we add IAOC to it.

> that arise in the future can be judged.

Yep, agree.

Allison

---

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 12:41:36 -0800

Scott,

> contract itself has a significant legal flaw - this seems basically

Just a reminder that the current BCP draft has the ISOC President/CEO
as a voting member of the IAOC, so it seems unlikely that this
officer is excluded from the RFP response review process.  

As to the accountant and lawyer (I'd look out for too many etcetera's :) -
again, considering that the IAOC is intended to be part of ISOC, I wonder
in what model the audit and legal reviews that are part of the RFP
response reviews will not be ISOC audit and legal reviews, using ISOC
accountant/lawyer?

Allison