Subject: [Iasa20] Summary of feedback so far

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 08:28:58 +0800

This is a quick summary from my perspective on the kinds of things we’ve heard from you,
on and off list:

On options:
-----------

Several people commented that the three options on display here as points along a
trajectory or spectrum.

The main question has been between IASA++ and the subsidiary options, essentially about
whether the focus should be about ``Having a clear organizational boundary''
vs. ``Avoiding a subsidiary organization as that just adds bureaucracy and distance from
funding source''. Or, should we be solving specific problematic issues or should we be
evolving basic organisational design to reduce issues?

Other comments:

- For any IETF independence or even for the subsidiary model, IETF has to become aware of
  costs. Cannot separate administrative operations from IESG, IAB, etc.

- Is there really a lot of difference between the subsidiary and independent cases as long
  as ISOC is primary funder?

- Clear separation of the accounts and of decision making concerning those accounts is one
  of the fixes needed for IASA++, and that should be enough.

- The IETF needs to be able to make its own administrative decisions independent of ISOC."
  If we take this to be true, then IASA++ is simply not an option. Currently we only have
  an informal agreeement with ISOC.

- Legal roles matter. If final authority is ISOC's, that does not seem like it meets the
  autonomy and accountability goals we have here.

- We can use business analogy here. Folks believe that we need the "IETF line of business"
  to operate in a way that is different from other work done by ISOC.  We need to be
  transparent in specific ways, and we need to take into account the specific needs of
  developing our standards.  This document lays out three ways to accomplish it.

- A detail here, but the subsidiary and independent organisations would need to apply for
  non-profit status.

On ISOC relationship:
---------------------

Some commonly believed observations here seem to be first of all that as long as the IETF
is largely reliant on ISOC for funding, ISOC will have a degree of control regardless of
formal independence. And secondly, that it is important to retain close relationship with
ISOC.

The main discussion (beyond the formal creation of subsidiaries etc) has been to which
extent should the subsidiary or independent options change the way IETF does budgeting or
funding. For instance, do these models imply a fixed budget or the on-a-need-basis type of
funding that IETF currently gets from ISOC?

Other comemnts:

- IASA++ could be seen as a stronger integration with ISOC (which could also be a good
  thing); this isn’t described in the document.

- Legal constraints are there regardless of IETFAdminOrg decisions. Unless there is total
  separation, ISOC will continue to bear some risks, for instance. But of course
  IETFAdminOrg should have appropriate authority; in my opinion this hasn't been a problem
  in the past though.

- Specifying how future evolution in the interface happens is important. For instance, the
  option (in Section 5.1.2) of ISOC re-absorbing the functions if the arrangements are
  finished needs further discussion, who can do that, etc.

On staff:
---------

Here there has been first of all some discussion of the practicalities of employee
performance review and other managerial processes, who owns these processes, and whether
there are barriers (e.g., legal) to how much IETF admistrative side can do.

One comment we received worried about the the bigger role of staff or contractors and the
increased number of people working for the IETF. Will staff's role and decisions be too
central? Some of the growth seems unavoidable, though, increasing work, limited
availability of volunteer cycles, etc. It is critical to ensure our oversight, control,
roles are clear. The main question is limiting staff/contractor growth vs. organising them
for best IETF-community oversight and control.

Other comments:

- Question about the need for Communications Director position, or the director-levelness of that position.

On IETF Trust:
--------------

Several people have commented here that the IETF Trust is a whole different discussion,
details deserve further thought. E.g., that the evolution of the IETF Trust will be
addressed separately at a later date.

On IETF vs. IETFAdminOrg roles:
-------------------------------

Here we have mainly received some questions and requests for clarification. For instance,
about the difference between IETFAdminOrg and IETF, and why the document emphasized that?
(The design team felt it is important to underline that what IETF administration continues
to do has no impact on the standards side of the house.)

We also heard that the role of IETF chair vs. IETFAdminOrg Executive Director needs more
clear separation.

We also got a comment that the goal text around avoiding overloading community volunteers
is well formulated.

On funding:
-----------

Here we've had some discussions about whether the nature of the administrative
organisation changes the budgeting process or the type of funding (e.g., fixed or on a
per-need-basis) that we get.

In addition, we received a comment that there is a need an IETF-ISOC agreement on funding
even for IASA++, lack of this agreement is what is causing current unclarities.
 
Other comments:

- Would like to talk about more predictable level of funding overall, not just from ISOC.

On Advisory Council:
--------------------

We've received a question on this, whether it is an extra layer or actually needed.

On transparency:
----------------

Not much discussion of this yet, presume there will be more as this has been an important
issue for the community. We did receive one comment the goal related to this is well
formulated.

On volunteers:
--------------

Not much discussion of this either, but we did receive a comment that we should consider
formal commitment from volunteers.

Comparisons:
------------

Here we received feedback e.g., about corrections relating to funding arrangements and
staff and making those comparisons fairer for the IASA++ option.

Missing:
--------

Some missing things:

- If there's going to be a new entity, where it falls on the subsidiary/independent
  spectrum will depend largely on (1) how its board is formed, and (2) what resources it
  shares with ISOC.  So it may make more sense to focus more directly on these questions.

- Would like to understand the impact of reduced volunteer availability of reduced
  external sponsorship to the different options.

- Document should discuss the impact to IRTF and IAB as well. Also, the role of IAB as an
  advisor to ISOC is not discussed. Here IETF (IAB) supports ISOC.

- The fund-raising responsibilities, accounting of costs, re-envisioned funding model have
  a clear monetary motive, transparency has a community motive, but other changes have
  less clearly motivated background.

- The oversight discussion lacks the recognition of possible conflict of interest for
  oversight persons (IAOC) and volunteer workers in IASA overlap.

EDITORIAL

We've received a number of editorial comments:

- Adding "... and to preserve IASA's negotiating position" under Section 3.3.

- Section 4 goal on clarifying roles should start with oversight role.

- Under Section 5.5., the Executive Director should be accountable to the IAOC or Board
  (to make it match all three options).

- In Section 3.1.2, under ISOC represention one could add that confusion about when ISOC
  member/donor is actually supporting standards development vs. other ISOC
  activities. (Also other editorial suggestions in the same Section).

- Suggested wording changes in Section 3.3.

- Better wording for the item around IETF Trust under 5.1.1.

- The first bullet about ISOC's role in Section 5.1.3 seems contradictory to the model.