Subject: RE: Time horizon, contingencies, and destinations (was scenarios 0 and C)

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 11:33:51 -0700

Inline.

At 11:16 AM -0700 9/27/04, Tony Hain wrote:
>Ted Hardie wrote:
>>  At 10:59 AM -0700 9/27/04, Tony Hain wrote:
>>  >  At the
>>  >same time, if we go down the path of more stable centralized fund-raising
>>  by
>>  >the scenario C proposed Independent Corporation, there are likely to be
>>  some
>>  >strong strings (ropes/chains) attached to that funding with the
>>  >implicit/explicit intent to influence the outcome of the technical
>>  efforts.
>>  >Call it a membership organization or not, the outcome of this environment
>>  is
>>  >that those who are providing the funds will be in a position to demand
>>  their
>>  >way on technical issues through the threat of pulling the money.
>>
>>  If the Independent Corporation were intended to be the IETF, I would
>>  agree, but I with an incorporated administrative entity, I don't think
>>  this is an issue.   At least in my reading, neither O or C proposes
>>  any changes to the standards process or ISOC's role in it.
>
>There is nothing explicitly proposed in C, but run the thought experiment of
>what would happen if a major contributor to the administrative entity
>threatened to pull funding if X didn't happen on the technical process side.
>It is not hard to get to the point of 'do X or fold the organization for
>lack of funds'.

Hmm. If I understand C correctly, the meeting fees are intended to be
the funding source with augmentation (if needed) by fund raising
done by ISOC.  Such a threat would be going to ISOC, then, just
as it would be under O.

The same argument could be made about ISOC's donors and the
RFC Editor decisions and/or appeals decisions.  Such interference
has not, to my knowledge, ever occurred.  Whether this is because
ISOC has refused donations which came so encumbered or because
those who might have offered them recognized ISOC would do
so, I don't know.  In either case, I don't see your thought experiment
producing a different result.
			regards,
				Ted Hardie

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

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 12:36:12 -0700

Ted Hardie wrote:
> > ...

The point is there is no real independence without complete funding, and as
I understand the recent budgets we are seriously into 'augmentation is
necessary'. Asking ISOC to be the cover organization at the same time you
tell them you don't trust them to do the right thing for managing the
administrative functions is just silly. If you don't trust them to do the
day to day right, why do you trust them to provide cover funding when it is
needed? You either trust them or you don't. 

As I said earlier, the IETF has to recognize that 'going it alone' is not
the goal. The core competency is development of technology standards, and
administrative management is not something to do in-house. While C claims to
be outsourcing, it really isn't. The real differences between C & O are the
perception of independence, and the costs. C is nothing more than a fantasy
that we can't afford in any case, short or long term.

Tony

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 13:51:31 -0700

Again, inline.

>needed? You either trust them or you don't.

ISOC is the cover organization in the funding sense for the RFC Editor;
that doesn't mean we want them to *be* the RFC Editor.  Saying that
an organization that fund raises for a function *must* take on that
function just doesn't fit our history and, frankly, doesn't have
the imperative that I sense people giving it here.  They *can* be
separate; the question is whether they *should* be.

I trust ISOC, and I am happy with their role in the standards process; I
don't want that to change, and I don't think either proposal does so.  But
I don't think the job of ISOC in education, policy, or outreach is the same
job as the administrative entity, and I don't think blending them is a
long term win.  In the short term, we may well need ISOC to incubate
an administrative entity, but in the long run ISOC's core mission
and the administrative entity's will be different.

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