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

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

Margaret,

> At 08:23 AM 8/27/2003 -0700, James Kempf wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> I thought that the IAB managed liaisons.  Am I confused?
>

I believe IAB decides whether to make a liason and who to appoint unless the
IESG does it (re. your citation below) but I think the IESG is responsable
for managing the relationship, as part of their general management
responsiblity for IETF, since the other SDO typically wants to interact with
the IETF and not IAB (though there may be exceptions).

> Looking at the IAB charter, it appears that either the IAB or the
> IESG can appoint liaisons "as appropriate".
>
> "(f) External Liaison
>
> The IAB acts as representative of the interests of the IETF and the
> Internet Society in technical liaison relationships with other
> organizations concerned with standards and other technical and
> organizational issues relevant to the world-wide Internet. Liaisons
> are kept as informal as possible and must be of demonstrable value in
> improving the quality of IETF specifications. Individual members of
> the IETF are appointed as liaisons to other organizations by the
> IAB or IESG as appropriate."
>
> The charter doesn't indicate who decided which is appropriate.
> Presumably Harald and Leslie?
>

Hmm, this seems confusing to me, and perhaps another reason why other SDOs
are having a hard time communicating with IETF. If neither body has sole
responsibility for appointing liasons, then there is no group/individual
with a map of who is talking to what group, and therefore in a position to
help faciliate the communication when things go off track. I wonder if there
is any way this could be simplified without putting in place a heavy weight
process? Or perhaps there is some informal process in place that I'm not
aware of?

            jak