Subject: Functional differentiation and administrative restructuring

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 18:59:24 -0700

As many will remember from the IETF 58 plenary presentation, I'm
a big fan of functional differentiation.  Though I try not to be
dogmatic in its application, I believe there are a lot of cases where
the creation of well-focused groups with limited goals is more
successful than the creation of groups with larger scale but more
diffuse goals.  I think it makes it easier to know what success
will look like when a group does its job well; I think it makes it
easier to train people to do those jobs, and I think it is
easier to recruit people into the roles.

As I, personally, look at the choices in front of us for administrative
restructuring, I find that preference manifesting itself in the question:

"In which of these scenarios do folks best get to concentrate on 
their real jobs?"

The conclusion I come to at the moment is that scenarios in which the
administrative work is done by a different entity than ISOC meet the
test better.  This isn't because I think ISOC isn't willing to do the work,
or concern over disengagement, or anything to do with how ISOC
relates to IETF as a standards-setting organization.  The work is
just sufficiently different from the role I see for ISOC that I would
rather we have ISOC and the administrative support entity  as two
separate, functionally distinct organizations.

I want to see ISOC working to educate policy makers.
I want to see ISOC educating engineers in emerging areas.
I want to see ISOC fighting for freedom of expression on the net.

To me, those are ISOC's real job.  I think it is very, very
important, and I think the existing relationship between the
IETF and ISOC is an important part of making sure that
ISOC can do that job.

But that does not mean ISOC should take over worrying about
the IETF's administrative details. Worrying over the scalability
of a ticket system is an administrative job.  Getting an agenda for
biweekly meetings together in advance and minutes out after
is an administrative job.  Worrying about the  scheduling of  130
probably conflicting working groups into twelve rooms over 5 days is
an amazingly hard administrative job.  All of those jobs are
critical to keeping the IETF functioning, and I value them all
highly.  But the skills needed for them are not the same as policy
outreach, or technical training, or editorial persuasion.

To put this in more IETF-typical terms, does this look like one
area or two?  To me, two.  I recognize that there is an increased
overhead in keeping two organizations going, but I think the
benefit in focus is worth it.

Just two cents from an IETF participant,
				regards,
					Ted Hardie

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

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 01:28:31 -0400

Ted,

Let me try to briefly start from your assumptions and explain
why one might reach the opposite conclusion.   Before I go on,
I'm assuming that your conclusion really implies "organization
separate from ISOC" rather than "separate organization within
some ISOC framework".  There are scenarios for the latter with
which I'd be perfectly comfortable.

For starters, I'm a fan (if that term can be applied to a
relatively dismal approach to things) of risk and cost-benefit
analyses in a "whole system" environment.    If a magic wand
could be found that would assure an instant and smooth
transition from wherever we are today to whatever state we would
like to end up in, while simultaneously holding Murphy's Law at
bay, and, in particular...

	* providing our volunteer leadership with both a lot of
	extra cycles without subtracting those cycles from the
	standards process, and 
	
	* providing that same leadership with executive
	management skills for which they were not selected and
	that, to be blunt, are not in evidence, and
	
	* guaranteeing that the IRS would instantly award
	tax-exempt status to the new entity, avoiding a
	prolonged period in which we needed to collect circa
	1.75 times the amount of money we needed to operate
	(contrary to the usual 12-24 months or longer it takes
	to get that status if there are no hitches) and escrow
	the tax reserve, and
	
	* guaranteeing that the corporations and organizations
	who have generously supported the IETF via ISOC would be
	immediately willing to support an untried new entity at
	double (or more) the funding level when their history of
	the last several years with ISOC has been to push back
	on funding requests until and unless ISOC and the IETF
	could get a model into place that was sustainable at a
	much lower level of donations, and 
	
	* guaranteeing that, with the same leadership steering
	the administrative entity that steers the standards
	process (there are other models, and I hope to be able
	to circulate a proof-of-concept strawman within the next
	few days, but all of Carl's scenarios basically assume
	that relationship as, more or less, RFC 3716 did)
	doesn't get us into difficulties with either tax status,
	perceived conflicts of interest, or control/capture by
	donors,
	
	* guaranteeing that we could actually (and quickly) find
	and hire an Administrator and supporting staff (while
	the proposal claims "one person" that actually isn't
	what it says), including sorting out benefits and
	status, etc., and that the Administrator and staff could
	quickly and smoothly get things up and running while
	resisting micromanagement from the volunteer leadership
	and/or the community, and

	* guaranteeing that hotel and meeting facilities would
	be willing to book facilities at more or less current
	deposit/ advance payment rates when the booking
	organization has _no_ credit rating (or that we could
	transfer that booking responsibility to another
	organization that would be willing to assume that level
	of risk on our behalf without additional compensation).

... and so on.  That isn't the whole list, but it perhaps starts
to make the point.

Now, if someone supplied that particular high-potency magic
wand, then I'd probably agree that a separate structure would
make things cleaner and more obvious (not necessarily better in
the grand scheme of things, but at least reasonable).   But,
from a risk analysis standpoint, even the abbreviated list above
is a pretty long list.  If any one of those assumptions (or any
of several of those not listed) is not met and things go
seriously wrong, the odds of the standards process grinding to a
complete halt -- think "no meetings", "no IESG phone calls",
and/or "even less functional mailing lists and archives" as
examples-- are non-trivial.

Now, by contrast, if we do this under an ISOC umbrella (really
expanding the existing umbrella somewhat) or, for that matter,
under a CRNI umbrella (if Bob Kahn hasn't gotten so completely
disgusted with us during this process that he would not consider
it), then the tax uncertainties go away, many of the
organizational uncertainties disappear, we have a sponsoring
organization that is not controlled by, or controlling of, the
standards process (a model that is used by every
non-government-based standards body in the world that I've been
able to identify), and we have a significant and tested safety
net under the other functions and risks.  

I think that is important, because I think that assuming that
the creation of a new structure and transition to it will go
rapidly, smoothly, and without a hitch is... well, words escape
me.  If the costs of making that assumption and having it not
turn out to be true were, at worst, some minor inconvenience,
then I think it might well be worth considering carefully.
But, as far as I can tell, the "separate organization" model
bets the entire survival of the IETF against a "nothing will go
wrong" assumption.  And that seems to me to be a bad choice...
unless there are no alternatives and independent of where
various styles of analysis lead us in some more perfect and
utopian world.

     john

--On Tuesday, 07 September, 2004 18:59 -0700 Ted Hardie
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> "In which of these scenarios do folks best get to concentrate
> on their real jobs?"
>

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 08:53:16 -0400

Hi John,

Thanks for you analysis.  It was something I felt lacking and has 
helping me in my wavering between the absorption into ISOC model and 
the independent corporate model.

I look forward to your analysis of the absorption model.

a.

On 8 sep 2004, at 01.28, John C Klensin wrote:

> But,

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 09:41:55 -0400

--On Wednesday, 08 September, 2004 08:53 -0400 [email-masked]
wrote:

> Hi John,
> 
> Thanks for you analysis.  It was something I felt lacking and
> has helping me in my wavering between the absorption into ISOC
> model and the independent corporate model.
> 

Avri, I want to apologize in advance for using your note as the
excuse for the rant below.   You are certainly not the first
person to do this and probably won't be the last; your note just
arrived at a convenient time.

<rant>
I think we need to be very careful about slapping labels of
convenience on options and then getting distracted by what those
labels "mean".  Doing so can really distract from a productive
discussion in which information is exchanged.    There has been
a lot of that sort of distraction, and the associated confusion,
going on, since even before San Diego.

"Absorption" is a loaded term.  If we are asked "how would you
like to be absorbed into foo", the answer has got to be "no".
For me, at least, the recurring image is some rather unpleasant
(for the food) digestion process.  But, to my knowledge, no one
has seriously proposed anything of the sort.   Certainly the
standards process has not been "absorbed".   I doubt that the
RFC Editor staff would consider themselves "absorbed".  There
are unincorporated organizations in addition than the IETF which
have worked closely with ISOC for years and haven't been
"absorbed" either.

And "independent corporate model", while less loaded
semantically (at least for me), is almost equally bad: to the
best of my knowledge, no one has really seriously proposed that
either, since "independent" would imply "own fundraising" and
presumably untangling the standards model which is now seriously
intertwined with ISOC.   As long as critical pieces of those
things remain in ISOC's hands, we aren't "independent" in any of
the normal senses of that term.
</rant>

    john

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 10:01:51 -0400

Hi John,

No problem, my skin is not that thin.  As i have tried to explain on 
the IETF list, i think we need to understand all options including 
these two extremes - the ones not specifically covered in the mud 
document.  I find the models expressed in the document somewhat 
incomplete and slightly disingenuous in that they don't discuss the 
implications of the end of the road - as far as i can tell they hand 
wave about 'extraneous' results.  And while I have never managed to get 
invovled in the policy part of IETF+ISOC, it is something i care about 
quite a bit.

So if my notes provoke the discussion, even in the form of 'rants', i 
am satisfied.

And thanks for the apology.

a.

ps. i don't have the negative connotations to absorbtion that you do.  
I see that as another term for merger, though, since ISOC is the real 
entity from a corporate point of view, it would constitute an 
absortion.  It is the conditions, as in by-law changes and perhaps 
MOUs, that determine whether this is beneficial or destructive.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 11:08:52 -0400

--On Wednesday, 08 September, 2004 10:01 -0400 [email-masked]
wrote:

> Hi John,
> 
> No problem, my skin is not that thin.  As i have tried to
> explain on the IETF list, i think we need to understand all
> options including these two extremes - the ones not
> specifically covered in the mud document.  I find the models
> expressed in the document somewhat incomplete and slightly
> disingenuous in that they don't discuss the implications of
> the end of the road - as far as i can tell they hand wave
> about 'extraneous' results.  And while I have never managed to
> get invovled in the policy part of IETF+ISOC, it is something
> i care about quite a bit.

Thanks.  I think we are in complete agreement on the above.

> So if my notes provoke the discussion, even in the form of
> 'rants', i am satisfied.
> 
> ps. i don't have the negative connotations to absorbtion that
> you do.  I see that as another term for merger, though, since
> ISOC is the real entity from a corporate point of view, it
> would constitute an absortion.  It is the conditions, as in
> by-law changes and perhaps MOUs, that determine whether this
> is beneficial or destructive.

Indeed.  But even "merger" can be pretty distracting and isn't
what I'm picturing either.  So I should stop responding to this
thread and go back to constructing that note :-(

      john

>>> has helping me in my wavering between the absorption into
>>> ISOC model and the independent corporate model.
>>> 
>> Avri, I want to apologize in advance for using your note as
>> the excuse for the rant below.   You are certainly not the
>> first person to do this and probably won't be the last; your
>> note just arrived at a convenient time.
>> 
>> <rant>
>> convenience on options and then getting distracted by what
>> those labels "mean".  Doing so can really distract from a
>> productive discussion in which information is exchanged.
>> There has been a lot of that sort of distraction, and the
>> associated confusion, going on, since even before San Diego.
>> 
>> For me, at least, the recurring image is some rather
>> unpleasant (for the food) digestion process.  But, to my
>> knowledge, no one has seriously proposed anything of the
>> sort.   Certainly the standards process has not been
>> "absorbed".   I doubt that the RFC Editor staff would
>> consider themselves "absorbed".  There are unincorporated
>> organizations in addition than the IETF which have worked
>> closely with ISOC for years and haven't been "absorbed"
>> either.
>> 
>> best of my knowledge, no one has really seriously proposed
>> that either, since "independent" would imply "own
>> fundraising" and presumably untangling the standards model
>> which is now seriously intertwined with ISOC.   As long as
>> critical pieces of those things remain in ISOC's hands, we
>> aren't "independent" in any of the normal senses of that term.
>> </rant>
>> 
>>     john
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 09:09:09 -0700

Howdy,

Responses inline.

>	that, to be blunt, are not in evidence, and

If you mean by the two points above the "existing volunteer
leadership", this is exactly contrary to the point of functional
differentiation.  I heartily agree that role of "manage the
standards process" and "manage the public policy outreach"
and "manage the site selection process" are very different
skills.  The point is to get different people into the roles,
so they can do them well.

I think we both agree that doing this well is not the IESG's
forte.  I think we disagree in that I don't see it as ISOC's forte
either, and I'm not sure why you do.  You know the history
of ISOC's finances, especially related to meeting management.
Would not the IETF administrative entity or ISOC need to
_hire_ the key people for this?

>	to get that status if there are no hitches) and escrow

This point and the related points below on donors and credit
ratings are very important, but they are also very short term in an
organization with a 25 year history and aiming for permanence.
Building the relationships around these problems is not good
planning, in my personal opinion.

>	perceived conflicts of interest, or control/capture by

One: I personally assume that day to day management is done by
someone else than those managing the standards process, because
doing so otherwise is deeply, deeply broken.  Two: an administrative
entity whose only purpose is to "keep the chips up" in the
felicitous phrase of Bernard Woolley is not one where capture
has the same level of concern as it would if both the standards
process and the administrative entity were united.  In other
words, keeping ISOC (with its existing role in the standards
process) separate from the Administrative entity is a better
hedge against capture than combining them would be.

>	and/or the community, and

This is not an insurmountable problem in my eyes; it's a hiring
decision.  Basing a long term decision on its difficulty doesn't
make sense to me.

>examples-- are non-trivial.

You are asking for a high-potency magic wand.  In fact, what
we are looking for is energy.  The energy to get this done
right can be found in our community; there are enough people
who care about it to make sure it happens.  There are nightmare
scenarios here, and I am sorry if they trouble your nights.  But
there are nightmare scenarios in any transition here.  The
basic point remains:  we need to make sure that people can
focus on their real jobs.  ISOC has a job in education, outreach,
policy making, and standards.  Adding "keeping the chips up"
for critical computer systems, meeting planning, and the related
support systems does not make sense.  The jobs just aren't
congruent enough to support the connection.

Again, just two cents from an IETF participant,
				regards,
					Ted Hardie