Subject: Re: Options for IETF administrative restructuring

From: [email-masked] (scott bradner)
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 08:52:03 -0400 (EDT)

For what it's worth I feel about the same way that Brian does about the
restructuring options.

I think that both options A & B make sense, could be done quickly and
would be a positive step in regularizing the relationship of the IETF
to its admin functions.  Both options provide a way for the IETF 
"management" to establish clear  controls over and take responsibility
for the IETF admin functions. 

I do think that it needs to be very clear in any arrangement with the
ISOC that the IETF Chair speaks for the IETF and can officially sign 
documents in the name of the IETF but I do not see any problems 
establishing that clarity.  (Note that no one, including the IETF 
Chair, can bind the IETF to do anything that the IETF has not, 
through its consensus processes, agreed to do.)

I think that option D makes no sense at all - it would create a very 
confused organizational structure under which the IETF would 
suddenly be responsible for a lot of things far removed from the
development of Internet standards -- in my opinion,  implementing
option D would go a long way to killing the IETF or at the very 
least stopping most relevant standards work for a long time.

I think that option C brings little useful to the table.  I fail to see
that incorporating the organizer of the IETF admin functions solves any
existing problem that is not better and more easily solved by options
A or B.  Option C mostly adds the complication  and expense of creating 
a corporation whose purpose almost no one outside of the IETF, and 
I expect few inside the IETF, would be able to untangle from the 
purpose of the ISOC.  

In sum, the ISOC is there, it was created in large part to support the 
IETF and has been doing so in various ways for many years.  (See Carl's
ID for information on this support for the past few years.)  I have 
not seen any argument raised that would lead me to conclude that the 
ISOC has not been doing what the IETF has wanted to date nor would 
lead me to conclude that there is any reason to believe that it 
would suddenly change its tune in the future (especially considering 
the presence of IETF-appointed ISOC board members)

Some people, in private, have mentioned that they feel the need to
be able to "blow the bolts" with the ISOC if, in the future, the 
ISOC board changes its priorities to such an extent that the ISOC 
no longer provides the support that the IETF needs or in some other 
way goes wacko.  I do not see that as a strong reason to install 
explosive bolts at this point - I expect that the IETF of the future 
can figure out what to do if such a situation arises.

disclaimer: I have some of the same history as Brian does.  I was 
an elected trustee of the ISOC for two terms, I also was the ISOC
VP for Standards from the time the position was created until 
it was dissolved (at my suggestion) since all major organizations
that I know of now recognize the IETF and there was no longer a 
need to have some sort of corporate entity to stand in for the IETF.
I am also currently the secretary to the ISOC board. But that
disclosed, my ties to the IETF is far more extensive and longer 
lasting.  In any case, the above is my own opinion and I did not 
coordinate it with the ISOC (or with Harvard).

(note that "wacko" as used above is not a technical term)

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

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 08:38:48 -0400

Hi Graham,

I'd like to make a couple of comments on your post -- not to argue 
with you (because I think we are in basic agreement), but just to 
clarify my earlier comments.

At 12:31 PM +0100 9/6/04, [email-masked] wrote:
>4.  However, Margaret has written about problems with existing
>arrangements.  While option A or B *might* solve the CNRI/Secretariat
>issues, how would it help the ( apparent ) RFC Editor issues ?

I do not personally believe that there any significant issues with 
the current organizational relationship between the RFC Editor and 
the IETF (as represented by the IAB & ISOC).  We have a well-defined 
relationship, defined in a publicly-available MOU.  The funding model 
of the RFC Editor is well-understood, we have clear visibility into 
what we are funding, the ownership of the IETF's intellectual 
property is clear (currently owned by ISOC), and I personally think 
that we're getting an excellent deal.

What I pointed out was a problem with having two different funding 
pools, and therefore two different corporations (ISOC and 
CNRI/Foretec, in this case) that claim ownership of the real or 
intellectual property that is purchased or developed using money from 
those funding pools.

Perhaps I was vague enough to be unintelligible, so I'll be more 
explicit.  But, please do remember that I am not a lawyer and do not 
fully understand the legal aspects of these things.

One of the things that I would like to see us do is to integrate (to 
some extent, anyway) the I-D Tracker and the RFC Editor Queue 
management tools, so that we can track a document from the time it is 
published as an I-D through RFC publication.  I have every belief 
that the RFC editor would cooperate in this effort, but we can't make 
real progress in this area because we (the IETF leadership and/or the 
IETF community) don't have the source code to the I-D Tracker and we 
haven't been allowed to access any tools that can do database 
reporting (full data dumps, for example) from the I-D Tracker.  The 
explanation I have been given for why we do not have these things is 
that CNRI/Foretec claims ownership of the I-D Tracker (the source 
code, the machines it runs on and the data it contains) because it 
was developed by them.  Since there is no contract in place that 
asserts IETF ownership of anything that is developed using our 
meeting fees, they may even be correct.

If one organization were funding (and therefore owned) the tools on 
both sides, we could not get into a situation where one organization 
was claiming ownership of a vital IETF tool and would not give us 
(the IETF leadership and/or the IETF community) the access necessary 
to leverage that tool across other IETF functions.

>As I
>understand it, the RFC Editor contract is already managed by ISOC.  If
>we have a problem with the way that relationship works now, why would it
>help to put the CNRI/Secretariat relationship on the same footing ?
>Since I don't know what the specific problems are, this needs to be
>addressed by someone with the benefit of IESG / IAB experience.

There are several people with substantially more IESG/IAB experience 
than I have, so I will allow them to comment further (if they like) 
on the RFC Editor relationship.  However, as I said above, I didn't 
mean to imply that there was anything significantly wrong with the 
organizational relationship between the RFC Editor and the IETF, and 
I don't think that there is anything wrong.

>5.  Section 3.1 of Carl's Report ( Page 20 ) states "Evaluation of
>applicants might consist of a search committee appointed by the IETF
>Chair."  Isn't the appointment of committee members what the IETF
>empowers the Nomcom for ?

IMO, this is a good point.

That said, I think that we need to determine the basic structure of 
this function before we determine the mechanism that we should use to 
hire the Administrative Director to run it.  If we go with the 
approach that I have suggested where a community-selected (by which I 
mean NomCom-selected) board would run the administrative functions of 
the IETF, then I think that the Administrative Director should be 
selected by the members of that Board.  Also, if we do decided to 
organize as a portion of ISOC (under either Scenario A or B), it 
might make sense for the President/CEO of ISOC to have some say in 
who is hired to work within her organization in this capacity.

Margaret

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 14:03:55 +0100

Margaret,

Thanks for the clarification.  I inferred - incorrectly - that there
were problems with the RFC editor / ISOC relationship.

	Regards,

	Graham Travers

	International Standards Manager
	BT Group

	e-mail:   [email-masked]
	tel:      +44(0) 1359 235086
	mobile:   +44(0) 7808 502536
      HWB279, PO Box 200,London, N18 1ZF, UK

BT Group plc
Registered office: 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ
Registered in England and Wales no. 4190816 This electronic message
contains information from BT Group plc which may be privileged or
confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended
recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of
the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received
this electronic message in error, please notify us by telephone or email
(to the numbers or address above) immediately. Activity and use of the
BT Group plc E-mail system is monitored to secure its effective
operation and for other lawful business purposes. Communications using
this system will also be monitored and may be recorded to secure
effective operation and for other lawful business purposes. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 06 September 2004 13:39
To: Travers,G,Graham,CXT R; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Options for IETF administrative restructuring

Hi Graham,

>we have a problem with the way that relationship works now, why would 
>it help to put the CNRI/Secretariat relationship on the same footing ? 

Margaret