Subject: Copy of Call for Consensus: IETF Administrative Restructuring (fwd)

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 09:57:28 +0200

Someone made the comment that there may be people who (like me) read the 
IETF list more often than they read the IETF-announce list - here's a copy 
of the call for consensus, just to make sure you've all seen it...

                   Harald

---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Date: tirsdag, oktober 26, 2004 17:36:59 -0400
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
To: IETF Announcement list <[email-masked]>
Cc:
Subject: Call for Consensus: IETF Administrative Restructuring

The IAB and IESG have considered the input and feedback of the IETF
community to date, including discussions on the IETF mailing and the
results of the straw poll conducted in mid-October.  Based on this input,
the IAB and IESG have written a specific recommendation about how to go
forward with this work, and have published it as an Internet-Draft:

- IAB and IESG Recommendation for IETF Administrative Restructuring
   <draft-iab-iesg-adminrest-rec-00.txt>

We believe that the IETF community opinion has converged on a rough
consensus to restructure our administrative support activity as described
in this recommendation ("Scenario O"), and we are sending out this Call for
Consensus in order to verify that such a consensus exists.
Verifying this consensus will allow the IAB and IESG to focus our efforts on
executing the AdminRest transition plan and on refining and completing the
IASA BCP.

Once we have a verified consensus, we will publish the recommendation
document as an Informational RFC for the historical record.

If you disagree with our determination of IETF consensus, or if you have any
other comments on this consensus call or on the document describing the
recommendation, please send them to the IETF mailing list ([email-masked]) by
Monday, November 8, 2004.

NEXT STEPS:

The document that is our working document for the IASA BCP is published as
an internet-draft:

- Structure of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA)
   <draft-wasserman-iasa-bcp-01.txt>

This document is not ready for Last Call, and we expect it to be
substantially revised based on community feedback and discussion.

Our plan for carrying out the restructuring is made public on the AdminRest
web page at <http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/adminrest/>. One snapshot of it
(current as of this writing) is also a current internet-draft:

- Proposed Transition Plan for IETF Administrative Restructuring
   <draft-wasserman-adminrest-plan-01.txt>

This document will not be published as an RFC.

Harald & Leslie
(for the IESG & IAB)

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

---------- End Forwarded Message ----------

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

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 12:33:29 +0200

>of the call for consensus, just to make sure you've all seen it...

Dear Harald,
the work you have engaged is necessary, but most probably not the top 
priority - if you take into account the call from IAB (RFC 3869) which 
concerns the deliverables. Deliverables should be considered first or at 
least equal. But in both there is a real practical problem that you may 
overlook. It is the reporting/working method. I explain.

One of the IETF problem is that it is "owned" (no critic, just trying to 
find a quick and poor word to best name a feeling) by old timers and their 
ways of thinking and working (RFC 3774). This comes with the plain text 
draft system. This is a good approach for the Internet standard process. 
But in this case it makes your propositions on several successive drafts, 
there is no flow chart, no diagram, no easy to peruse web site, no wiki, 
there are acronyms a plenty, etc. While all this relates to a topic and 
thinking which is not the usual concern in here.

IMHO this probably does not speak to most, hence the low response level on 
a key issue. In whole, I tried to spend three or four hours - what is 
already a lot of time for most - reading now outdated drafts, and mails on 
this. I am afraid I recall quite nothing.

I suggest you try to do what Roessler did for the ICANN proposed reform: a 
web site with colored diagrams, giving the two or three options in column, 
with con and pros on a wiki. Then you tell people it will take them an hour 
to read it all and to make their mind.

My evaluation is that a governance has four poles around the user : 
technical, societal, economic, political. The Internet bulb was the 
economic implosion. The @large issue and Mike Roberts' call and working 
group was the societal implosion. Stuart Mills call, Alexandro's reform and 
WSIS was the political implosion. RFC 3869 and this are dealing with a 
rampant technical implosion. The technical side has the leadership (because 
one needs an infrastructure to build upon and because "constitution is in 
the code"). So a real global rebuild and a new start of the whole internet 
governance and business could start from here. This is worth working on it!

IAB has not fully documented the full challenge (model, multilingualism, 
semantic web, RFID, etc. are missing) but it has boldly identified the 
problem, as you also did. So, we have most of the decision elements at 
hand, but not a clear coordinated description and explanation "leaflet" to 
help opinion making. (I may also have a low IQ, but please remember that we 
have many cultures involved and one of the identified problems what I would 
nickname "LIC & LIQ" participation [local internet communities and low IQ] 
towards a dynamic consensus).

Economic usage of the net is not what we could have hoped for, but it 
develops a lot. @large are currently a failure but there is no reason why 
consumers and civil society etc. would not come back globally as they do in 
some places and through the WSIS. The "internet governance" debate is 
active and may lead to a good intergovernance of the digital ecosystem. I 
think you should succeed, and all of us with you, but you need far more 
support to get a momentum. From previous experiences I think you will agree 
that you need 3000 people (existing and new) informed and supportive, not 
200. Otherwise you will have a dull consensus, a workable patch, but not a 
good motivating tool.

I think it is possible and I am ready to help, but in a coordinated way. 
For example there are in some countries ISOC groups of national IETF 
Members (when there are not, this would be a motivation for local chapter 
to investigate one and to make ISOC better known). This would be a good way 
to inform and motivate people and to get feed backs. I have discussed that 
with our French Chair at length yesterday and there is no problem for a 
debate and public meeting. This is a way to make our Members more aware, 
more motivated but also to out-reach to new members and address some of the 
RFC 3774 critics about the US nexus and culture.

My 2 euro cents.
jfc