Re: [Fwd: Re: IAB comments on draft-baker-liaisons-00.txt]

["James Kempf" <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>]

> The biggest potential issue I see is that it is not so
> clear how we define a "consensus based" or an "authoritative"
> answer back from a WG to another SDO.
>

Up to the IESG to decide, as part of managing how ongoing liasons are done.

> It is a similar issue (in my view) as how we decide who can
> be an official IETF liaison to some other SDO at one of their
> meetings or such.
>

I believe the IAB has some input into who is the IETF liason representative,
at least, that was the case with Scott and ITU-T. But I am not clear whether
IAB is formally responsable for the appointment of the representative, as is
the case with approval of the liason relationship itself. Does the IESG
formally do the appointment or does the IAB?

> I think that I should put this on the IESG agenda for the
> next telechat, to see if we have any serious issues/concerns
> as the IESG.
>

Good idea.

            jak