Subject: draft-lyons-proposed-changes-statement-00.txt

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 09:51:45 -0400

Hi Patrice,

I noticed the Internet-Draft that you posted regarding IETF 
Administrative Restructuring, and I have a few comments on it, 
speaking as one interested member of the IETF community to another.

For those who have not seen Patrice's draft, it can be found at:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lyons-proposed-changes-statement-00.txt

I found the history section of this draft to be quite interesting and 
informative.  Thank you for sharing it.
I think it is important for the IETF community to understand and 
appreciate the huge contributions of many key individuals and groups, 
including Bob Kahn and CNRI, in helping us to achieve our past and 
current success.

The draft also points out CNRI's commitment to supporting the IETF 
through this administrative restructuring process in accordance with 
the consensus of the IETF community.  I would personally like to 
thank you, and especially Bob Kahn, for your contributions to this 
process and for your willingness to support the IETF through this 
transition.

The primary proposal in your draft seems to be that we should 
incorporate the IETF (including the standards function), and ask the 
current IESG to serve as the Board of Directors.  The IETF would then 
hire an Executive Director and contract for administrative services 
directly.

A few others have also suggested that we incorporate the IETF itself, 
rather than defining a separate administrative support function, and 
that possibility was briefly discussed on the IETF list in early 
September (see Harald's September 2nd post with the subject "What to 
incorporate"). On the surface, it seems simpler and more obvious to 
incorporate the IETF than to incorporate a separate administrative 
support function (as in Scenario C), or to organize our 
administrative support function under an existing corporation (as in 
Scenario O).  So, I do think that there is something compelling about 
your proposal.

However, several people have pointed out the importance of keeping 
the cash flow (meeting fees, donations, meeting sponsorships and 
contracts for support services) separate from the IETF standards 
process itself, in order to maintain the independence and credibility 
of our technical work.  It has been pointed out that other major 
standards bodies, such as the IEEE and INCITS/ITS have chosen to 
separate their financial and administrative functions from their 
standards work, and that these groups serve as a model that the IETF 
might choose to follow.  So, it is quite possible that incorporating 
the IETF itself would actually require setting up two separate 
corporations -- a standards function (that deals only with our 
technical work) and an administrative support function (that deals 
with all administrative, financial and contractual matters).

In my personal opinion, one of our paramount concerns in this process 
should be to maintain the integrity and credibility of the IETF as an 
independent standards body, and I believe that maintaining a 
separation between our standards function and our administrative 
support function is vital to maintaining that integrity and 
credibility.  Do you agree that this type of separation is important? 
If so, how would you maintain that separation in your proposal?

If you accept that the standards function and the administrative 
support function should be separate, then it is possible to discuss 
restructuring and formalizing our administrative support function, 
while leaving the IETF standards function as-is -- a loosely-defined, 
unincorporated entity. In my personal opinion, this is the best path 
to follow at this time, as I see no particular benefit to 
incorporating the IETF standards function.  Do you see benefits to 
incorporating the IETF standards function that I may be missing?

Have you had an opportunity to read the Scenario C and Scenario O 
proposals that are currently under discussion on the IETF list?  You 
can find them here:

Scenario C: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg31321.html
Scenario O: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg31326.html

I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts and feedback 
regarding these two scenarios, as I believe that you may have a 
unique perspective to offer regarding the organizational, legal and 
functional impacts of these choices.

Thanks again for your contributions to this discussion so far, and I 
hope that you will continue to participate in these discussions as an 
interested and knowledgeable member of the IETF community.

Margaret

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf