Subject: draft-lyons-proposed-changes-statement-01.txt

From: "Patrice Lyons" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:07:54 -0400

Margaret,

Thanks for sharing my Internet-Draft on the IETF administrative processes
with the IETF discussion list.  I also appreciated your recognition and kind
words about the role played by CNRI, and Bob Kahn in particular, in
supporting the IETF community.  I have since revised my Internet-Draft
somewhat in light of informal suggestions received from various persons, and
added a few words to clarify certain issues you raised in your comments.
The revised version is posted at:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lyons-proposed-changes-statement-01.txt

You mentioned the importance of keeping support services, such as management
of cash flow, separate from IETF technical efforts.  I share this concern in
large part.  However, I would draw a distinction between carrying out
routine administrative, financial (like accounting for expenses and meeting
fees), technical (such as computer rooms at meetings), legal or other
support services for the IETF ("support services"), and the solicitation,
donation, receipt and other fundraising efforts for IETF purposes
("fundraising").

Apart from the provision of routine IETF support services, fundraising for
the IETF is a potential source of conflict of interest. To minimize the
possibility that a contributor of funds for IETF purposes might be perceived
as having an undue influence on IETF standards setting work, I have proposed
that a new, separately incorporated and independent entity called the IETF
Foundation be established to manage the IETF fundraising activities.  While
the IETF Foundation would necessarily need to coordinate with the IETF
leadership on IETF funding needs, the Foundation would not have any
operational role (whether administrative, technical or otherwise) with
respect to the IETF itself.  A mission of this new organization would be to
interface directly with funding sources and provide a buffer between such
sources and the IETF.

In any event, the IETF retains the fiduciary obligation to supervise and
control any support services provided to the IETF by third parties,
including any possible new administrative entity that may be established
to serve the IETF community. While supervisory responsibility for certain
support services (whether under contract or simply volunteer) may be
delegated by the IETF to others, the obligation to provide general oversight
for such activities resides ultimately with the IETF leadership, in
particular the IESG.  It would not be appropriate for the IETF to give up
this vital oversight responsibility in the interest of administrative
efficiency.

Please let me know if this clarification of my comments meets your concerns.
I look forward to resolving the administrative issues that have been under
discussion recently, but would add a note of caution on a rush to judgment.
The reorganization issues under consideration are of major importance for
the future of the IETF, and the Internet community more generally.

Regards,

Patrice
<[email-masked]>

P.S.  Since I just subscribed to the IETF discussion list and haven't
received official notification yet,  I would appreciate it if you would
again share my comments with the list.

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

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:32:55 -0400

Hi Patrice,

>donation, receipt and other fundraising efforts for IETF purposes

I don't believe that this distinction is as clean as you have 
indicated, particularly when it comes to meeting sponsorship, 
donations-in-kind and preferred contract pricing.

Meeting sponsorship is one means by which large companies can offer 
financial support to the IETF (in return for PR and good will), so it 
is not really distinct from fund raising.  This lack-of-distinction 
is emphasized by the meeting in Korea, where the sponsors donated 
$150,000 to the CNRI/Foretec, in addition to usual sponsorship costs 
which run in 6 figures themselves.  I have no objection, at all, to 
having our meetings sponsored and/or having the sponsors make 
additional donations, but I think that meeting sponsorship is quite 
clearly a form of funding.

Another form of funding is donations-in-kind.  CNRI/Foretec currently 
buys equipment, software, etc. for running the IETF adminstrative 
activity.  It might be possible to get companies to donate these 
goods, so that we don't have to pay for them.  But, this is also a 
form of funding.

Another, even more subtle form of funding is preferred contract 
pricing.  Carl Malamud's report supposes that there are some people 
who would offer preferred (or zero-cost) prices to the IETF for their 
services, either for the PR or good will associated with providing 
those services.  We already see this today on a smaller level -- the 
ops.ietf.org site is on Randy Bush's server, edu.ietf.org is on James 
Seng's and tools.ietf.org is on Henrik Levkowetz's.  Many people 
donate their time to do a number of system administration tasks for 
the IETF and/or to run servers for our use (issue tracking, jabber, 
etc.) Maybe someone else will agree to run the IETF mailing lists for 
free (or cheap)?  Or our web site?  These are also all donations of 
goods, services, etc.

So, I propose that we can't realistically separate all fund raising 
activities from the administrative support activity, at least not 
without eliminating some significant sources of funding.

>the future of the IETF, and the Internet community more generally.

We are in agreement that decisions about the structure of the IETF 
are important, long-term decisions that should not be taken lightly 
or made hastily.

Margaret

---

From: "Patrice Lyons" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 13:44:34 -0400

Margaret,

You appear to be agreeing with my comments about the fundraising issue.
There should be a distinction between routine contributions of funds for
specific IETF events, and more substantial, long term support for IETF
activities. Of course money is received in connection with IETF meetings:
this is essential to the running of such events.  There are also donations
in kind to support such activities as the computer room and possible
entertainment at the venue.  However, such contributions whether in
kind or cash differ considerably from the sustained donations that
may be sollicited in order to provide long term stable support for
IETF purposes and allow it to expand the services provided to
the IETF community, and the Internet more generally.

Regards,

Patrice
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Margaret Wasserman" <[email-masked]>
To: "Patrice Lyons" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: draft-lyons-proposed-changes-statement-01.txt

> I don't believe that this distinction is as clean as you have indicated,
> particularly when it comes to meeting sponsorship, donations-in-kind and
> preferred contract pricing.
>
> financial support to the IETF (in return for PR and good will), so it is
> not really distinct from fund raising.  This lack-of-distinction is
> emphasized by the meeting in Korea, where the sponsors donated $150,000 to
> the CNRI/Foretec, in addition to usual sponsorship costs which run in 6
> figures themselves.  I have no objection, at all, to having our meetings
> sponsored and/or having the sponsors make additional donations, but I
> think that meeting sponsorship is quite clearly a form of funding.
>
> Another form of funding is donations-in-kind.  CNRI/Foretec currently buys
> equipment, software, etc. for running the IETF adminstrative activity.  It
> might be possible to get companies to donate these goods, so that we don't
> have to pay for them.  But, this is also a form of funding.
>
> Another, even more subtle form of funding is preferred contract pricing.
> Carl Malamud's report supposes that there are some people who would offer
> preferred (or zero-cost) prices to the IETF for their services, either for
> the PR or good will associated with providing those services.  We already
> see this today on a smaller level -- the ops.ietf.org site is on Randy
> Bush's server, edu.ietf.org is on James Seng's and tools.ietf.org is on
> Henrik Levkowetz's.  Many people donate their time to do a number of
> system administration tasks for the IETF and/or to run servers for our use
> (issue tracking, jabber, etc.) Maybe someone else will agree to run the
> IETF mailing lists for free (or cheap)?  Or our web site?  These are also
> all donations of goods, services, etc.
>
> activities from the administrative support activity, at least not without
> eliminating some significant sources of funding.
>
> We are in agreement that decisions about the structure of the IETF are
> important, long-term decisions that should not be taken lightly or made
> hastily.
>
> Margaret
>