[AFS3-std] Second Draft of Standardisation Document: Registrars

[Jeffrey Hutzelman]

--On Friday, August 29, 2008 03:35:07 PM -0400 Steven Jenkins 
<steven.jenkins@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu> wrote:
>> --On Friday, August 29, 2008 03:18:02 PM -0400 Steven Jenkins
>> <steven.jenkins@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Simon Wilkinson <simon@sxw.org.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Attached is a second draft of my AFS standardisation proposal. I
>>>> believe I've updated it to reflect all of the discussions to date.
>>>>
>>>> Comments, including expressions of support, highly welcome!
>>>>
>>>
>>> While the document is looking good, David's questions raise a concern.
>>>  The language around selecting the registrars says nothing about their
>>> terms ending or the number of registrars overall.  While the
>>> registrars have very little power individually (i.e., the day-to-day
>>> is handing out protocol numbers, with the only real power being the
>>> ability to help break a tie with the other registrars), there should
>>> be appointment terms and recall procedures for the registrar roles as
>>> well.
>>
>> Why, particularly with the rules you've described?  If the registrars are
>> self-selecting, then I don't think we need to specify that they do so at
>> specific times.  It's also not clear to me that the group needs the
>> power to recall individual registrars, given that it doesn't have the
>> power to appoint them.
>>
>> Note that the registrar is not a leadership role; it's a clerical one.
>> The corresponding role in the IETF (IANA) is performed by employees of
>> ICANN, who keep their jobs until they resign or are terminated, just
>> like any other employee.
>>
>
> I understand that it's a clerical role, but in a paid position, there
> are rules and procedures for terminating employment.  We need to have
> analogous (not necessarily identical) ones here.

Would you be satisfied with language allowing the registrars to eject one 
of their own?  If not, what else do you think is necessary?

Note that if the registrar process breaks, the standardization group is 
always free to pick up the pieces (tables) and do the job some other way.

> I think it will also help registrars in recruiting new ones: for example:

Maybe, but that's not a reason to set it down in the stone of a process 
document.  If the registrars want to ask for commitments for a particular 
length of time, or review membership periodically, let them decide that.


> And also if a registrar is simply not doing anything, the registrars
> should have the ability to replace that individual: I don't see any
> language clearly giving registrars the ability to remove deadwood, but
> only language about adding new ones.

Yes, that language could probably use some improvement.