Subject: IESG/IAB conclusions, recommendation and next steps

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 09:32:52 +0200

IETF folks,

The IESG and IAB have been considering the input from the IETF community on
the next steps going forward in IETF administrative restructuring.

It appears clear to us that the community mostly sees scenario O as the
lower-risk scenario, and the one that gives us the greatest probability of
successfully doing what we have to do.

Based on this, the IESG and the IAB make the following recommendation:

       We recommend that the IETF pursue scenario O, with the understanding
       that further work is needed to define the roles and responsibilities
       of the IETF, the IAOC and the ISOC BoT under this scenario

The "BCP section" of the scenario O note will be pulled out and published 
as an internet-draft. We'd like to put this description to the IETF 
community for a formal Last Call before the November IETF meeting, if 
possible.

Also, as noted in the recommendation above, there are a number of points
where we need to work out in more detail how the system is going to work -
who takes decisions, who accepts those decisions, and what conflict
resolution mechanisms may be necessary, and so on. The IAB and IESG are
drafting a document that will describe the finer level of detail as to the
respective roles and responsibilities of each of the players. We will
publish this as an internet-draft shortly.

We will continue to work intensely on this!

                  Harald & Leslie, for the IESG & IAB

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

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 14:12:58 -0400

> community for a formal Last Call before the November IETF meeting, if

Given the seriousness of the issues at stake, I think this document 
warrants a longer-than-usual last call, possibly preceeded by additional 
discussion.  I particularly think there should be an opportunity to discuss 
this proposal, ask questions, etc during the November meeting,  This is not 
incompatible with starting a last call before the meeting, so long as the 
last call period does not _end_ before the meeting is over.

-- Jeffrey T. Hutzelman (N3NHS) <[email-masked]>
   Sr. Research Systems Programmer
   School of Computer Science - Research Computing Facility
   Carnegie Mellon University - Pittsburgh, PA

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 22:32:34 +0200

--On fredag, oktober 08, 2004 14:12:58 -0400 Jeffrey Hutzelman 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> discussion.  I particularly think there should be an opportunity to
> discuss this proposal, ask questions, etc during the November meeting,
> This is not incompatible with starting a last call before the meeting, so
> long as the last call period does not _end_ before the meeting is over.'

Agreed. That's the plan (the fastest version of it - if discussion does not 
converge quickly, it may take even longer).