Structure of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA)
draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-07

[Note]: 'After significant discussion on the IETF list, version -07 was published on Friday, February 11. I have consulted with ISOC, and I will wait one week (until February 18) before removing my (strictly procedural) DISCUSS.' added by Harald Alvestrand

[Note]: 'After significant discussion on the IETF list, version -07 was published on Friday, February 11. I will wait one week (until February 18) before removing this DISCUSS.' added by Harald Alvestrand

[Ballot discuss]
At this date (February 3), I believe that there is substantial consensus on the document. However, the -06 version of the document was published on February 2.
If the consensus seems to still hold, I will remove this DISCUSS on February 9, 7 days after the publication of the document, if the next condition holds.
The ISOC BoT is also reviewing the document. I will hold the DISCUSS until I receive an ACK from the ISOC BoT that they are OK with the text.

[Ballot discuss]
At this date (February 3), I believe that there is substantial consensus on the document. However, the -06 version of the document was published on February 2.
If the consensus seems to still hold, I will remove this DISCUSS on February 9, 7 days after the publication of the document, if the next condition holds.
The ISOC BoT is also reviewing the document. I will hold the DISCUSS until I receive an ACK from the ISOC BoT that they are OK with the text.

[Ballot comment]
Section 4 includes a discussion of the process for selection of
  IAOC members.  There is not a paragraph that covers the member
  appointed by the ISOC Board of Trustees.  However, the guidance
  provided to the IAB and the IESG seems appropirate for the ISOC
  Board of Trustees as well:

    - Appointees need not be current ISOC Board of Trustees members
      (and probably should not be);

    - The ISOC Board of Trustees should choose people with some
      knowledge of contracts and financial procedures, who are
      familiar with the administrative support needs of the IAB,
      the IESG, or the IETF standards process.

    - The ISOC Board of Trustees should follow a fairly open process,
      perhaps with an open call for nominations or a period of public
      comment on the candidates.

[Ballot discuss]
At this date (February 3), I believe that there is substantial consensus on the document. However, the -06 version of the document was published on February 2.
If the consensus seems to still hold, I will remove this DISCUSS on February 9, 7 days after the publication of the document.

[Ballot comment]
I suggest we change refs to RFC2026 and RFC3777 to BCP09, and BCP10
correspondingly, so that when 2026 and 3777 get updated, the refs
are still meaningful.

[Note]: 'This document is still under discussion on the IETF list.
A (hopefully) final revision (-06) is expected on Tuesday, Feb 1.
That version is expected to have new text on appeals, but otherwise only minor edits.' added by Harald Alvestrand

[Note]: 'This document is still under discussion on the IETF list.
A (hopefully) final revision (-06) is expected on Tuesday, Feb 1.' added by Harald Alvestrand

[Ballot comment]
Posted to the mail list:

Section 4 says:
>
> The Chair serves at the pleasure of the IAOC, and may be removed from
> that position at any time by a two thirds vote of the voting
> membership of the IAOC.
>
This means that 6 of 8 votes are needed, and one of the voters is the chair himself.  I would be more comfortable with 5 votes, which is 2/3rds of the voters other than the chair himself.

We want to keep it simple.  However, a recall is serious.  At a minimum, we need to require that 2/3rd of the voters are present for the vote.  If we say that at least 2/3rd of those present must vote for removal, then an 'abstain' is essentially a vote to keep the chair in office.

[Ballot discuss]
Section 4 says:
>
> The Chair serves at the pleasure of the IAOC, and may be removed from
> that position at any time by a two thirds vote of the voting
> membership of the IAOC.
>
This means that 6 of 8 votes are needed, and one of the voters is the
chair himself.  I would be more comfortable with 5 votes, which is
2/3rds of the voters other than the chair himself.  In other words, the
2/3rds of the voters is okay, except that the chair should be recused by
the procedures.

[Ballot discuss]
I have outstanding last call issues on the -04 document that will hopefully be addressed in -05.  They have all been sent to the list.

[Ballot discuss]
The Alphabet Soup definitions of IAD and IAOC expand "I" as Internet rather than IETF - later
the "I" is IETF.  The Alphabet definitions need to be corrected.

[Ballot discuss]
At this date (January 18), there are still items under discussion on the IETF list, including the procedure for decision review, the recall procedure and comments about how we describe the finances.
I believe these will not substantially change the document, but will hold a DISCUSS until I can fairly say that I believe the discussion has reached a consensus.

[Note]: 'This document is still under discussion on the IETF list.
A revision (-04) is expected on Friday, Jan 14.
I (Harald) am putting it before the IESG on Jan 20 to make sure formal IESG processing does not cause delay that is not warranted. I will hold a DISCUSS on the document until it is clear that the IETF discussion is finished.
' added by Harald Alvestrand