Re: FYI: 3979 update

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> At least as far as the BCP's in this WG's purview go, I believe
> we have to make a formal update, and I remind y'all that BCP 101
> is fairly explicit that IASA/IAD are not involved in standards
> process matters. If I can be persuaded that there's a better way
> than a BCP patch, I'll be happy, but my logic leads that way.
>
> And I have to contradict Harald: the IAD is not the ExecD.
> BCP 101 doesn't say that. It says that the IAOC has a duty
>    o  To designate, in consultation with the IAB and the IESG, the
>       person or people who carry out the tasks that other IETF process
>       documents say are carried out by the IETF Executive Director.
> But that is more of an ietf@ietf.org issue. 
I was through all the iterations on that - the conclusion was that it 
was an issue that couldn't be tackled in BCP 101 without delaying that 
process even more. So we left it open.

WRT "role in the standards process": The secretariat plays no role in 
the standards process either, except to facilitate it.
And that is something both the IAD and the secretariat does. So I don't 
buy that argument.
The reason the ExecDir was tasked with these tasks over the years was 
mostly (I think) that he was supposed to be someone with no personal 
stake in the outcome (as opposed to industry-employed people, who very 
well might have).

                   Harald

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg