Subject: Re: [Iasa20] Review of draft-haberman-iasa20dt-recs-01

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 19:01:42 +0100

Thanks for your review and comments, Richard. Some further discussion below:

> >  o  Which direction the community would like to take the work in
> >     evolving IASA.
> 
> As above, I think the critical questions here are where the line between
> IETFAdminOrg and the remainder of ISOC should be drawn, and how it should be
> encoded.  In light of those questions, I view the three options on display here
> as points along a trajectory or spectrum: Each represents an increasingly hard
> line, and will require correspondingly greater clarity about the roles and
> responsibilities of the entities on either side of that line.  

Yes. Good point.

> To be honest, I'm not totally sure where along the spectrum would be optimal.
> That said, a few thoughts:
> 
> * I don't see much point to IASA++.  Given the  degree to which this exercise
>   is focused on increasing clarity and transparency, it seems worth having a
>   clear organizational boundary and an entity that is clearly accountable to
>   IETF.  If you were to try to meet the clarity and transparency goals while
>   keeping the activities within ISOC, you would end up effectively creating a
>   subsidiary anyway, but without the benefit of the clear rules around an
>   actual subsidiary.  In other words, IASA++ is just an inferior version of
>   the Subsidiary case.

Ack. FWIW (and this is of course just my own opinion), I see it roughly the
same way. But I recognise that I might not see all the possibilities, so lets
keep discussing.

> * I don't really see a lot of difference between the subsidiary and independent
>   cases as long as ISOC remains a predominant funding source for the IETF.

Right.

>   On
>   the one hand, a subsidiary IETFAdminOrg will only ever be loosely subsidiary
>   to ISOC, given that IETF is going to want to maintain a large degree of
>   control/oversight over it.  On the other hand, as long as IETF is largely
>   reliant on ISOC for funding, ISOC will have a degree de facto control
>   regardless of formal independence -- if they really don't like how IETF is
>   being run, they can just pull the funding (or threaten to).

Good point. 

> 
> * Likewise, in either the subsidiary or independent cases, there will be a need
>   for an explicit contract / MoU with regard to funding.

Yes.

> * If there's going to be a new entity for IETFAdminOrg (vs. IASA++), 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.

That makes sense.

Jari

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 11:09:40 -0700

> same way. But I recognise that I might not see all the possibilities, so

I believe is fair to say, though, that setting up a subsidiary requires
both an up-front cost and continuing costs that are larger than would be
entailed by a re-org within ISOC.

regards,

Ted

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 20:08:56 +0100

> I believe is fair to say, though, that setting up a subsidiary requires both an up-front cost and continuing costs that are larger than would be entailed by a re-org within ISOC.

Yes.

(And I’ve seen your comment about IASA++ potentially also been seen as stronger integration with ISOC. That was what I was thinking of when I said we need to keep discussing… I want to understand that better. But will save that discussion to another email.)

Jari

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 15:28:12 -0400

> entailed by a re-org within ISOC.

Yes.  The benefit that you buy with those costs is autonomy.  If the
organization resides within ISOC, then ISOC management can control it with
whatever granularity they desire.  If it is subsidiary, then the control is
much more attenuated.  So the operative question here is whether the
autonomy is worth the costs.

Personally, given the desire in this community for the IETFAdminOrg to be
clearly accountable to the IETF community, and the level at which I would
naïvely expect the costs to come in (without having seen concrete
estimates), my guess is that it will be worth it; thus the conclusion above.

--Richard

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 15:52:31 +1300

On 19/10/2017 06:55, Richard Barnes wrote:
...> * I don't see much point to IASA++.  Given the  degree to which this exercise
>   actual subsidiary.  In other words, IASA++ is just an inferior version of

Disagree. Of course the devil is in the implementation details, but I
would reverse your assessment: if we do IASA++ right, the subsidiary
is an inferior version of IASA++ (more bureaucracy with no practical
effect).

>   cases as long as ISOC remains a predominant funding source for the IETF.

That's exactly the point. Apart from even more bureaucracy than the
subsidiary, it would weaken the relationship with ISOC over the
long term, and hence jeopardize our main funding source.

...
>   for an explicit contract / MoU with regard to funding.

We need that in the IASA++ case too. Its absence is one of the reasons
we have complaints at the moment about lack of clarity. Indeed, that's
why it's important that all staff time is charged to the IETF budget,
and that all volunteer effort is documented. And why it's important that
the IAOC does oversight rather than execution.

I think we have a choice. Fix things that aren't working, or add one
or two layers of bureaucracy and hope that they fix themselves.

   Brian