Subject: Re: Options for IETF administrative restructuring

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 19:15:37 -0400

Hi.  First I'd like to start off by saying that I think Carl's
document is a very good start for discussing these options.

I support the recommendations made in section 3.  I believe they are
well justified and would be a great step in the right direction.

Section 3 talks about clarifying the intellectual property ownership
of the IETF's IP.  One important area of IP ownership was not covered:
the tools developed to perform the clerk function.  I believe that the
IETF should work to own these tools for several reasons.  It will
facilitate easier transitions from one vendor to another.  It will
facilitate accepting volunteer improvements to these tools.  Finally,
the IETF could make these tools available to other groups trying to
solve similar problems.  I suspect that these benefits would justify
any additional expense involved in owning these tools rather than
treating the clerk function purely as a service.  Perhaps I'm wrong; I
certainly feel that the IETF should explicitly understand what value
it is getting if it decides to allow someone else to own tools
developed to solve IETF needs.

I do not think that recommendation 7 in scenario B is a good idea.  I
believe that plenary time is full enough without crowding it more.

I'm concerned that the document doesn't really motivate Scenario C or
D.  It does describe them and it does list some of the disadvantages.
However it doesn't really explain why they are on the table at all.  I
think they should be on the table; people have made arguments to that
effect here.  However the document doesn't do a sufficiently good job
of capturing these arguments to explain why these options are
sufficiently credible as to be worth examining.  Where did the idea of
forming a corporation come from; why would we want to do it again?

Thanks for your consideration,

--Sam

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

---

From: Aaron Falk <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 11:35:47 -0700

> believe that plenary time is full enough without crowding it more.

What about a 'business meeting' that is scheduled in wg slot or even on 
Sunday?

I understand that there may be conflicts between people who want to go 
to a working group and the business meeting but we live with those in 
working groups.  Hopefully, with a smaller group (compared to the 
plenary) and largish block of time a good f2f dialog could take place.

--aaron

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 14:50:41 -0400

>>>>> "Aaron" == Aaron Falk <[email-masked]> writes:

    Aaron> On Sep 5, 2004, at 4:15 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:

    >> I do not think that recommendation 7 in scenario B is a good
    >> idea.  I believe that plenary time is full enough without
    >> crowding it more.

    Aaron> What about a 'business meeting' that is scheduled in wg
    Aaron> slot or even on Sunday?

If needed, this would be fine.  I'm not convinced that open f2f time
will be needed.  However I think there is a simple test for whether
the time is needed: can we come up with an agenda that fills a slot
and meaningfully involves the community?

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 12:32:00 -0400

--On Tuesday, 07 September, 2004 11:35 -0700 Aaron Falk
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> What about a 'business meeting' that is scheduled in wg slot
> or even on Sunday?
> 
> I understand that there may be conflicts between people who
> want to go to a working group and the business meeting but we
> live with those in working groups.  Hopefully, with a smaller
> group (compared to the plenary) and largish block of time a
> good f2f dialog could take place.

In my continuing pursuit of trying to avoid fixing what isn't
broken and of doing only those things in the name of
problem-solving that actually solve problems...

(1) We have serious problems finding enough time for WGs and
BOFs to meet and to do so without serious conflicts, do we
really need to introduce another term into the equation?

(2) Is it generally understood that the ISOC BoT already usually
meets on Saturday and/or Sunday before the IETF meetings and
that those meetings are open?

(3) Would more publicity of (2) permit us to declare success on
this topic and move on, even without knowing what problem is
being solved?   :-)

Mumble.
     john

---

From: "Steve Crocker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:31:54 -0400

> (2) Is it generally understood that the ISOC BoT already 
> usually meets on Saturday and/or Sunday before the IETF 
> meetings and that those meetings are open?

Usually yes, but in this particular case, I believe the ISOC Board of
Trustees meeting is Nov 12-13, after the IETF meeting.  If we want to
pursue using a piece of that time for this, I'm sure it can be arranged.
In any case, I expect there will be some time devoted to this as part of
the board's normal business.

Steve