Subject: RE: Options for IETF administrative restructuring

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 00:06:43 +0200

Scott writes:
... snip ...
>
> 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.  
> 
Scott, my personal view on this is that if we kust look at TODAY, then 
you are correct. And so today I could live with scenario A or B (I think 
I prefer some form of B in that case). 

However... in the very distant past, I am sure that the relationship with
CNRI was very good too. And I am sure that at that time we were happy
and that we assumed nothing bad would happen (if we actually even though 
of it). And one would think that if things were to get in a shape or 
situation that we (IETF community) no longer find acceptable, then we
would expect that we (or our leadership) takes action or comes with 
proposals for action. Oh well... not so easily. It drags on for long.

When I joined the IESG in 1998, I saw little if any problems with the
secretariat or CNRI. I did not know how meeting revenues were being used 
to support the secretariat and all that. I learned that our IETF chair at 
the time (together with you (Scott) if I recall correctly?) were negotiating
a contract with CNRI. The response that came back was that it needed some
more review on CNRI side and things were not easy... and a year or so went by.
The next rounds we needed the contract more, because the finacial side
was not transparent and not reported in a timely fashion and not in 
enough detail. But again there were all sorts of unclear issues.
And so we went on for 6+ years (yep I have been on IESG that long).
And in the meantime the working relationship between IESG and Secretariat
also suffered. A lot of that had to do with increased workload, but also
with the fact that we did not have a good contract in place that documented
what the responsibilities and tasks were/are of secretariat and how we (IESG
and rest of community) interface/interact with secretariat. Let alone that
we (IESG/IETF) did not have control over finances so we could set priorities
on specific pieces of secretarial work that needed improvement.

Now the important lesson I learned here is that I think initially there
were good intentions and good relationships between CNRI and IETF. But they
degraded very slowly year over year and we still have no contract or MoU
or such in place. And it had to become really bad (my preception) before
we (IETF/IESG/IAB) finally took action to investigate and document our
major concerns in RFC3716.

In other words... things creep on you very slowly. And if you things go well 
for a long time and then start to deteriorate very slowly, then it is tough 
to stand up and cause trouble and REQUIRE/ORGANIZE change in a commonly agreed
manner. Specifically if one side is not eager to move swiftly.

Now... I assume and hope we will never get into such a situation with ISOC.
But I think that is what we (IETF) also assumed/hoped many years ago with CNRI.

If we were to go for option C, then in my personal view, it would have the
serious benefit that we are ALWAYS (from day 1) responsible to make sure
things work well. And we need to re-negotiate every so often if we want
to keep the relationships that we have or if we want to change them.
So in my view we would run far less risk to ever get in a similar situation
as where we are today. Yep... initially it will cost us some more money and
effort I suspect. But I think it is worth the price.

Note also, that I DO want the IETF to keep its curent relation with ISOC and
that I also DO want the new "IETF secretarial support function" to have very
strong relations with ISOC. We can and should work that out and then document
it so we all know what the relationship is.

But... this is just my personal view.
I hope it helps a constructive discussion.

Bert

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

---

From: "Steve Crocker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 22:17:49 -0400

Bert, et al.,

Thanks for your note.  I too have watched the evolution of the
relationship with CNRI for a long time.  I served on the IESG from 1989
to 1994 when Phill gross was the IETF chair, and I served on the IAB for
another two years.  I co-chaired the POISED working group which
reorganized the relationship between the IAB and the IETF and instituted
the nomcomm, so I empathize quite a lot with your concerns.  That said,
let me suggest three things, the last of which is, in my view, the most
important.

1. In my view, the relationship between the IETF and ISOC is not at all
similar to the relationship between the IETF and CRNI.  The IETF already
has a strong management role in ISOC.  The IETF has seats on the ISOC
board, it has complete visibility into the budget, and other specific
formal controls.  That is, it's not a distant, separated relationship,
but one where the IETF is already deep inside.  To a great extent, the
IETF has as much control over ISOC as it would have over a new
organization it might try to establish.  And speaking for myself, if the
IETF needs greater visibility and/or representation within ISOC, I'd
support whatever changes in ISOC governance are needed.  ISOC was
founded to be a home for the IETF and it has functioned in that role
since its inception.  And a large percentage of the ISOC members and
board are people who have grown up in the IETF.

2. I have trouble understanding option C.  It's a lot of mechanism that
doesn't have a clear purpose.  We can dig into the details as deeply as
desired, but I truly believe it's a quagmire.  Some people who advocate
it view it as merely a glitzier form of A or B.  Others view it as a
version of D dressed up so it doesn't seem quite so confrontational.  I
think it creates a whole series of problems and doesn't provide any real
protection.  If a real breach does develop between the IETF and ISOC in
a way that doesn't get addressed sensibly through the very strong
structures and protections that are already built in, then the IETF can
walk away and create another legal home, develop its own source of
funding, and take on the full load of being a separate and independent
organization.

3. As I understand it, the administrative restructuring effort was
stimulated by problems with the support functions.  The problems had
reached the point where the IETF's work was not getting done.
Discussions with the supporting organizations, particularly
CNRI/Foretec, didn't resolve the problems, at least in part because the
contractual and management relationship wasn't clear.  I believe there
is now clear agreement that much cleaner management and budget authority
is required.  One way or another, there will be unified management in
place to oversee the support functions.  That much is good.  What is not
so good, in my opinion, is the lack of focus on what needs to be fixed
in the support functions.  The IESG area directors are perhaps the most
affected and have the most knowledge in this regard, but I'm sure
working group chairs and many others have much to say.  Irrespective of
whether one chooses option A, B, C or D as the framework, the real work
will come in restructuring the support functions and working out the
details of who does what.  I've been surprised at how little discussion
there's been along this line.  If things were broken enough to bring the
relationship with the support functions to a head, then surely it's time
to lay out what needs to be fixed.

What aspects of the IETF's operation hasn't been served properly?  Some
possibilities that come to mind are:

O Turn around time in the Secretariat, IANA and/or RFC Editor hasn't
been fast enough.

O Information flow hasn't been timely or accurate.

O Coordination among the support functions and between the support
functions and the IETF hasn't been satisfactory.

O Automation has been weak and stovepiped.

I can't speak authoritatively about these, and perhaps I've missed some
important questions.  But it seems to me that this is where we need some
attention with constructive suggestions on how to proceed.

(I left out discussion of the meetings.  This is also important, and
there has been some specifics discussed on this list regarding meetings.
This is good.)

Steve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 6:07 PM
> To: [email-masked]'.cnri.reston.va.us; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Options for IETF administrative restructuring
> 
> 
> Scott writes:
> >
> ... snip ...
> >
> > 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.
> > 
> However... in the very distant past, I am sure that the 
> relationship with CNRI was very good too. And I am sure that 
> at that time we were happy and that we assumed nothing bad 
> would happen (if we actually even though 
> situation that we (IETF community) no longer find acceptable, 
> then we would expect that we (or our leadership) takes action 
> or comes with 
> When I joined the IESG in 1998, I saw little if any problems 
> with the secretariat or CNRI. I did not know how meeting 
> revenues were being used 
> the time (together with you (Scott) if I recall correctly?) 
> were negotiating a contract with CNRI. The response that came 
> back was that it needed some more review on CNRI side and 
> things were not easy... and a year or so went by. The next 
> rounds we needed the contract more, because the finacial side 
> enough detail. But again there were all sorts of unclear 
> issues. And so we went on for 6+ years (yep I have been on 
> IESG that long). And in the meantime the working relationship 
> between IESG and Secretariat also suffered. A lot of that had 
> to do with increased workload, but also with the fact that we 
> did not have a good contract in place that documented what 
> the responsibilities and tasks were/are of secretariat and 
> how we (IESG and rest of community) interface/interact with 
> secretariat. Let alone that we (IESG/IETF) did not have 
> control over finances so we could set priorities on specific 
> pieces of secretarial work that needed improvement.
> 
> Now the important lesson I learned here is that I think 
> initially there were good intentions and good relationships 
> between CNRI and IETF. But they degraded very slowly year 
> over year and we still have no contract or MoU or such in 
> place. And it had to become really bad (my preception) before 
> we (IETF/IESG/IAB) finally took action to investigate and 
> document our major concerns in RFC3716.
> 
> to stand up and cause trouble and REQUIRE/ORGANIZE change in 
> a commonly agreed manner. Specifically if one side is not 
> eager to move swiftly.
> 
> Now... I assume and hope we will never get into such a 
> situation with ISOC. But I think that is what we (IETF) also 
> assumed/hoped many years ago with CNRI.
> 
> If we were to go for option C, then in my personal view, it 
> would have the serious benefit that we are ALWAYS (from day 
> 1) responsible to make sure things work well. And we need to 
> re-negotiate every so often if we want to keep the 
> relationships that we have or if we want to change them. So 
> in my view we would run far less risk to ever get in a 
> similar situation as where we are today. Yep... initially it 
> will cost us some more money and effort I suspect. But I 
> think it is worth the price.
> 
> Note also, that I DO want the IETF to keep its curent 
> relation with ISOC and that I also DO want the new "IETF 
> secretarial support function" to have very strong relations 
> with ISOC. We can and should work that out and then document

---

From: Aaron Falk <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 17:53:19 -0700

> effort I suspect. But I think it is worth the price.

Bert-

It seems to me that this is an argument for option B as well as C.  My 
take from the history you laid out is that what was missing was a 
clearly articulated set of relationships which defined roles and 
responsibilities (and possibly instructions for disentangling if things 
went bad.  AFAICT, this could just as easily be put into option B 
without creating an (imo undesirable) increased distance between IETF 
and ISOC.

--aaron

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 18:09:07 -0400

I'd like to provide one point of important clarification:
the ISOC trustees appointed by the IETF do *not* represent the IETF.
So, while I agree firmly that the IETF's relationship to ISOC is
closer than the IETF's relationship to any other organization,
I disagree strongly that "the IETF" has "a strong management role in
ISOC" as it stands today.

The IETF, through the IAB (as outlined in RFC3677), selects individuals
to fill ISOC Board seats.  The IAB has consistently sought individuals
with management, leadership and/or administrative backgrounds
appropriate for helping ISOC as a whole organization, to fill those
seats.  We (the IAB, the IETF) do not treat those trustees any
differently than any other trustees on the ISOC Board; there is no
advice given, no reporting sought.  The only time we (the IAB)
have sat down with that collection of trustees specifically was when we
were seeking input on whether or not there were additional things we
should have considered in our selection process (that
our original 3 appointees learned after we'd dropped them in).

I can't speak to whether the folks appointed by the IETF *feel* some
obligation to represent IETF perspectives, but there is no formal
expectation or mechanism for them to do so.

While we *could* turn that into a representational appointment, that
would represent a change in the status quo, probably would
require different appointment procedures within the IETF, and perhaps
some additional reporting duties.

Leslie.

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality:
      Yours to discover."
                                 -- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Steve Crocker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 19:26:32 -0400

Leslie,

Thanks.  Your basic point is well taken, but I think there are two
important additional layers.  As you said, the IETF's appointees to the
ISOC board function first and foremost as ISOC board members, not as
IETF's representatives.  This is the same for all the board members.
The IETF appointees to the board have functioned extremely well on
behalf of ISOC.  Indeed, Fred Baker, the chair, is an IETF appointee,
and his election as chair is a signal that the rest of the board values
his leadership across the full range of interests and responsibilities
we have to deal with.

Here's what I see as the additional layers.  First, in a very real
sense, the IETF is in the room whenever IETF related issues are
considered.  There is nearly complete information about the innermost
workings of ISOC available to the IETF and IAB chairs.  There is close
counsel and advice on any matter related to the IETF.  You, Harald, Fred
and Lynn can probably flesh this out better than I can.  There is no
distance and veil of separation between IETF and ISOC.  ISOC does not --
and I don't think it could -- make a decision that is related to the
IETF, much less adverse to the IETF, without close communication and
coordination.

Second, if there were some sort of persistent tension, the IETF would
necessarily take that into consideration when appointing the next set of
board members.  Thus, if something got out of hand, it wouldn't persist
year after year without the IETF taking the natural step of sending
appointees to the board with a strong brief to try to get the problem
fixed.  As you say, this would represent a change in the IETF's current
mode of selecting board members, but it would be entirely within the
IETF's purview to do so.  No approval would be needed from ISOC.  Of
course, if this were ever relevant, things would have gotten to a poor
state, but that's the kind of situation we're discussing.

When I said "the IETF already has a strong management role in ISOC," I
didn't mean that ISOC matters are routed to the IETF as a whole for
decisions.  That would be unwieldy and it would burden the IETF with
details usually unrelated to the standards process.  But I do mean that
IETF viewpoints and IETF active people are always present, and that all
matters related to the IETF involve close coordination with IETF
management.  And, as I said, if problems arise, the IETF has mulitple
modes of access built into the current relationship.

Steve

> From: Leslie Daigle [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 6:09 PM
> To: Steve Crocker
> Cc: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; 
> [email-masked]'.cnri.reston.va.us; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Options for IETF administrative restructuring
> 
> 
> 
> the ISOC trustees appointed by the IETF do *not* represent 
> the IETF. So, while I agree firmly that the IETF's 
> relationship to ISOC is closer than the IETF's relationship 
> to any other organization, I disagree strongly that "the 
> IETF" has "a strong management role in ISOC" as it stands today.
> 
> The IETF, through the IAB (as outlined in RFC3677), selects 
> individuals to fill ISOC Board seats.  The IAB has 
> consistently sought individuals with management, leadership 
> and/or administrative backgrounds appropriate for helping 
> ISOC as a whole organization, to fill those seats.  We (the 
> IAB, the IETF) do not treat those trustees any differently 
> than any other trustees on the ISOC Board; there is no advice 
> given, no reporting sought.  The only time we (the IAB) have 
> sat down with that collection of trustees specifically was 
> when we were seeking input on whether or not there were 
> additional things we should have considered in our selection 
> process (that our original 3 appointees learned after we'd 
> dropped them in).
> 
> I can't speak to whether the folks appointed by the IETF 
> *feel* some obligation to represent IETF perspectives, but 
> there is no formal expectation or mechanism for them to do so.
> 
> While we *could* turn that into a representational 
> appointment, that would represent a change in the status quo, 
> probably would require different appointment procedures 
> within the IETF, and perhaps some additional reporting duties.
> 
> 
> Leslie.
> 
> 
> Steve Crocker wrote:
> > Bert, et al.,
> > 
> > relationship with CNRI for a long time.  I served on the IESG from 
> > 1989 to 1994 when Phill gross was the IETF chair, and I 
> served on the 
> > IAB for another two years.  I co-chaired the POISED working group 
> > which reorganized the relationship between the IAB and the IETF and 
> > instituted the nomcomm, so I empathize quite a lot with 
> your concerns.  
> > That said, let me suggest three things, the last of which is, in my 
> > view, the most important.
> > 
> > 1. In my view, the relationship between the IETF and ISOC is not at 
> > all similar to the relationship between the IETF and CRNI.  
> The IETF 
> > already has a strong management role in ISOC.  The IETF has 
> seats on 
> > the ISOC board, it has complete visibility into the budget, 
> and other 
> > specific formal controls.  That is, it's not a distant, separated 
> > relationship, but one where the IETF is already deep inside.  To a 
> > great extent, the IETF has as much control over ISOC as it 
> would have 
> > over a new organization it might try to establish.  And 
> speaking for 
> > myself, if the IETF needs greater visibility and/or representation 
> > within ISOC, I'd support whatever changes in ISOC governance are 
> > needed.  ISOC was founded to be a home for the IETF and it has 
> > functioned in that role since its inception.  And a large 
> percentage 
> > of the ISOC members and board are people who have grown up in the 
> > IETF.
> > 
> > 2. I have trouble understanding option C.  It's a lot of mechanism 
> > that doesn't have a clear purpose.  We can dig into the details as 
> > deeply as desired, but I truly believe it's a quagmire.  
> Some people 
> > who advocate it view it as merely a glitzier form of A or 
> B.  Others 
> > view it as a version of D dressed up so it doesn't seem quite so 
> > confrontational.  I think it creates a whole series of problems and 
> > doesn't provide any real protection.  If a real breach does develop 
> > between the IETF and ISOC in a way that doesn't get 
> addressed sensibly 
> > through the very strong structures and protections that are already 
> > built in, then the IETF can walk away and create another 
> legal home, 
> > develop its own source of funding, and take on the full 
> load of being 
> > a separate and independent organization.
> > 
> > CNRI/Foretec, didn't resolve the problems, at least in part because 
> > the contractual and management relationship wasn't clear.  
> I believe 
> > there is now clear agreement that much cleaner management 
> and budget 
> > authority is required.  One way or another, there will be unified 
> > management in place to oversee the support functions.  That much is 
> > good.  What is not so good, in my opinion, is the lack of focus on 
> > what needs to be fixed in the support functions.  The IESG area 
> > directors are perhaps the most affected and have the most 
> knowledge in 
> > this regard, but I'm sure working group chairs and many others have 
> > much to say.  Irrespective of whether one chooses option A, 
> B, C or D 
> > as the framework, the real work will come in restructuring 
> the support 
> > functions and working out the details of who does what.  I've been 
> > surprised at how little discussion there's been along this 
> line.  If 
> > things were broken enough to bring the relationship with 
> the support 
> > functions to a head, then surely it's time to lay out what 
> needs to be 
> > fixed.
> > 
> > What aspects of the IETF's operation hasn't been served properly?  
> > Some possibilities that come to mind are:
> > 
> > I can't speak authoritatively about these, and perhaps I've missed 
> > some important questions.  But it seems to me that this is where we 
> > need some attention with constructive suggestions on how to proceed.
> > 
> > there has been some specifics discussed on this list regarding 
> > meetings. This is good.)
> > 
> > 
> > Steve
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 19:57:45 -0700

I'll add one point. Many of the ISOC's organizational members 
(http://www.isoc.org/orgs/, http://www.isoc.org/orgs/orgsbytype.shtml) are 
companies that employ IETF participants or are otherwise related to the 
standards process. The IETF is near and dear to their hearts as well, often 
very explicitly so.

The current structure of the board has three IETF-appointed positions, six 
positions elected by the organizational members, and three that are elected 
by the ISOC Chapters. In the coming few years, a new category of paying 
individual members may (this is not assured) gain as many as three 
additional seats. Today, IETF directly selects 3/12 of the board and has 
strong influence on another half of it; this is a direct or indirect 
influence on 75% of the ISOC Board. That may change in time to 3/15 plus 
6/15, which is still a 60% supermajority.

I would not think it wise to understate the influence the IETF has on the 
Internet Society. We have other goals and activities in addition to the 
IETF, but the IETF is very powerful in ISOC.

At 07:26 PM 09/07/04 -0400, Steve Crocker wrote:
>This message was passed through [email-masked], which 
>is a sublist of [email-masked]. Not all messages are passed. Decisions on 
>what to pass are made solely by IETF_CENSORED ML Administrator 
>([email-masked]).