Re: IAB request for clarifications in RFC2727bis

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

This is the main reason why I believe an ISOC Board liaison
in the NomCom is essential. Up to now, the Board has had no
way to get an unbiased view of whether the process has run
well. Last year, when NomCom took one or two surprising
decisions, this led to a good deal of last minute emergency
communication (and confusion).

On the second question the IAB raised - I believe very strongly
that both confirming bodies are *not* just there to verify process.
If a confirming body, after due diligence, concludes solemnly
that the NomCom has made an unacceptable choice, the confirming
body needs to say no. Otherwise, the checks and balances are
not meaningful.

Of course, I hope this will be an extremely rare situation.

    Brian

Geoff Huston wrote:
> 
> At 09:57 AM 3/13/2003 -0500, Dave Crocker wrote:
> >Geoff,
> >
> >GH> that the Board did not feel that it could make substantive comment
> >GH> on the process used by the Nomcom, nor was it able to provide
> >GH> and alternate view on the qualifications of the individuals named in
> >
> >  Did those discussions, or your own thoughts, produce any suggestions
> >  that might enable the ISOC review to be more substantial (and
> >  therefore more useful)?
> 
> I am going back over 3 years in my comment. At the time the ISOC Board
> did not want to be seen to interfere in the IETF, and saw themselves
> in a scripted and bounded role.
> 
> Things may have changed in recent years, and Brian and Fred
> are more up to date than I.
> 
>     Geoff
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>