If I might chime on on Stephen's comments ...

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 1:= 24 PM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> w= rote:

This is mostly fine but I have three comments:-

- ICANN interactions often involve ICANN $$$. I think it ought
be clear that the IETF's nominee will not be paid for their
time. I'd be fine with ICANN picking up travel costs if the
person needs help with that. (I think that's the same as the
setup for the IETF's pick for the ICANN board, is it?.) It'd
be worth documenting that in any case.

I ag= ree with this. The question of compensation has come up for IAB-appointed l= iaison managers as well (when an SDO offered to pay our liaison manager to = perform the role), and this is about where the conflict-of-interest discuss= ion ended up for that (travel OK, compensation beyond that is not OK).

=C2=A0

- I thi= nk it is a mistake to allow I* folks as nominees for
this. In particular, the IAB ought not allow it's own members
to be nominees. I'd also be for dis-allowing IESG, IAOC and
IETF nomcom folks. I see no good reason to introduce potential
new conflicts of interest here when those are easily avoided.
(If someone is doing this role, and is later selected for
IAB/IESG/IAOC/nomcom, I'd be ok with that though.)

The biggest reason why I'd agree with Stephen here is if th= e IETF ever does anything that results in a formal appeal from ICANN, havin= g someone involved in the appeal at both ends is complicated. This is rough= ly why the IAB is discouraged from appointing IESG members (and, to a lesse= r extent, WG chairs) as liaison managers to other SDOs, after the interacti= on between ITU-T and IETF on T-MPLS and MPLS-TP several years ago.

I'm not sure whether the same concern applies for IAOC= or Nomcom members, of course.

But if the IAB can&= #39;t find acceptable nominees who aren't IAB members or IESG members, = that would be worrying.

=C2=A0

- Lastly, a minor point, if the expected workload can = be
estimated, that'd be good. Even if that changes later.

I don't know that this needs to be in the document, bec= ause as Stephen points out, the expected workload can change over time, but= at least saying in the document that the call for nominations should provi= de an indication of the expected workload might be helpful.

<= /div>

I had one non-Stephen comment as well. I'm looking at this te= xt,

=C2=A0 =C2=A0The IAB will select one pers= on for a one-year term.=C2=A0 This appointment

=C2=A0 =C2=A0will = be renewable for up to three additional one-year terms. =C2=A0

= =C2=A0 =C2=A0

and wondering why this needs to be a hard limit *in= the document*. I can easily imagine the IAB saying "gee, that person&= #39;s been in the position for a long time, and we should really look hard = for a replacement" even without this text, and I'd like to think t= he IAB would Do The Right Thing.

If the four= -term restriction is tied to something at ICANN, of course, that's diff= erent.=C2=A0

Spencer