[rfc-i] Who decides on the contracts

Joel M. Halpern jmh at joelhalpern.com
Tue Jan 4 16:32:32 PST 2011

I hope that in eliding to highlight one point, I have not miss-stated 
your message:

On 1/4/2011 6:52 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> "works in tandem with" doesn't mean "must agree with them on contracts".
> If the proposed model is changed to have either the RSE or IAOC decide
> on contracts, *of course* that body would consult with the other.

If we all agreed on what was "obvious" (a term with similar tone to "of 
course they would do X"), then we would not be having this discussion.
Yes, Bob and you both agree that would be an obvious and correct thing 
to do.
But if it is actually important to the process (and I think it is), then 
it better be written down so that when all of us discussing this burn 
out, those stuck with what we write will still do the correct thing.

Writing this so that it specifies sufficient interaction, without 
binding how the IAOC goes about its necessary part of the process is tricky.
And getting the balance among the fact that the RSE is responsible for 
the proper operation of the system, the IAOC is responsible for the 
contract, and the IAB is responsible for high level policy, is hard to 
write in a way that respects all of the players.  In particular, the RSE 
needs to have sufficient weight in the process so that the contract does 
not leave him with something he strongly believes won't work.  (I 
started to write "thinks", but if he just thinks it won't work, and the 
IAOC thinks it is the right answer, then they should be able to go ahead 
with it.  I am concerned about a stronger difference of views.)


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list