Subject: iasa-bcp-02 - Issues with IAD autonomy

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 14:21:00 +0100

Hi,

For the most part I am happy with the way the document is turning out.  
In reading through -02, though, I am still somewhat uncomfortable with 
the autonomy of the IAD

While there is a method to appeal procedural lapses by the IAOC, and I 
am fine with that, there does not seem to be a way for a member of the 
community to question, i.e. appeal, the actions of the IAD. I.e. 3.4 
does not contain method to appeal the actions of the IAD for procedural 
issues or suspected malfeasance.

I think there should be an explicit responsibility on the IAOC to 
review any complaints members of the community bring up against the 
IAD.  I have no problem with them throwing out the frivolous ones or 
the ones that say 'he or she picked my competitor,' but it should be 
possible for members of the community, or of the leadership, to have 
grievances heard.  And then, if the community is not satisfied with the 
procedure the IAOC followed in handling the complain, they have 
recourse to section 3.4.

possible wording:

- To review and act on complaints regarding the IAD's performance from 
the IETF community.

I know this gives the community the right to complain about anything, 
but it also empowers the IAOC to act on it - including dispose of 
spurious claims.

On this list there has been some conversation that we don't want the 
powers that be to be overburdened by having to handle many complaints 
against the IAD for contracts someone might not agree with.  While I 
mostly agree with this position, it should be possible for someone who 
knows a contract was given in return for a kickback, or just for the 
love of a family member, to file a complaint with some entity who will 
review it impartially and act on it.

Additionally:
>  To review the IAD's plans and contracts to  ensure that they will 
> meet the  administrative needs of the IETF.

Can this be amended to '... ensure they meet the procedural 
requirements and the administrative ...'

And from section 3.2 3rd paragrapgh.

>  The IAOC's role is to direct and review,

At the very least, I think this should be '"direct, review and approve"

thanks

a.

ps. editorial questions from the same section:

>  To select the IAD and provide high-level  review and direction for 
> his or her work.  This task should be handled by a  sub-committee, as 
> described in Section 3.

is this a proper self-reference?  should the reference be more specific?

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