Subject: RE: Options for IETF administrative restructuring

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 12:31:39 +0100

All,

My two cents worth...

1.  I'm inclined to prefer option A or B, on the grounds of keeping
things simple ( BUT see point 4, below ).

2.  I think that we shouldn't broaden the discussion at this time ( as
Avri suggested ), on the grounds of keeping things simple.

3.  These choices don't prevent us from widening the discussion and
making further changes later.  Management requires continually
monitoring developments and reviewing the management techniques in use.

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 ?  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.

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 ? 

	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. 

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

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 14:46:49 +0200

> empowers the Nomcom for ? 

Not any committee.  The NOMCOM focuses on filling our leadership 
positions.  We then need to trust that the NOMCOM has done a good job by 
allowing their choices the freedom to manage the administrative stuff 
(IMHO).

Eliot

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 11:11:04 -0400

> Avri suggested ), on the grounds of keeping things simple.

I understand the desire to keep thing simple and that Carl is 
attempting a simple fix to a single problem.  However, I think that any 
of the decisions made on a simple fix have possible repercussions for 
the entire relationship and for the IETF's ability to function as a 
standards body.  It is these that I think need to be understood.

This is why I think the full scope of the possible effects should be 
discussed and understood for all options, including both the 4 
compromise solution proposed (A-D) and the more extreme positions of a 
full merger into ISOC or the establishment of an independent Standards 
non profit corporate counterpart/companion to ISOC.

Currently I think A-D are all in some respect ambiguous relationships 
that open many questions.  I tend to prefer one of the more extreme 
positions mentioned above, though I can't yet say which of the two i 
would argue for since I don't fully understand the repercussions of 
each.

That being said, i would also find it reasonable to establish a 
direction and pick an intermediate route that gave immediate solution 
to the 'simple' problem problem involved in gaining control of the 
administrative functions.  Whether that intermediate is A or C, would 
in many ways depend on where we wanted to end up in the end.

a.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 16:45:22 -0400

Graham,

One comment...  more, perhaps to come, or already covered by
others.

--On Monday, 06 September, 2004 12:31 +0100
[email-masked] wrote:

> All,
> 
> My two cents worth...
> 
> 1.  I'm inclined to prefer option A or B, on the grounds of
> keeping things simple ( BUT see point 4, below ).
>...
> 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 ? 
>...

That provision worries me a great deal, and not because of "what
the Nomcom is for".   In the IETF community, we have,
predominantly, a group of people whose expertise is in various
aspects of Internet protocol design (including their security,
operational, and other implications).  We do not have a
community of professional executive-level managers with
extensive line budgetary and contractual experience.  Indeed, if
significant numbers of those people started showing up at
meetings or otherwise actively participating in the IETF's
standards work, much of the community would consider it a source
of significant anxiety (just as we get anxious about excess
quantities of marketing types, professional process-oriented
standardizers, lawyers, etc.).  But the Nomcom membership is
supposed to reflect a random sample of the community: if the
community doesn't contain those skills and experiences in
significant quantities, neither will the Nomcom.  Clearly, it is
an open question as to whether a Nomcom on which those skills
are not heavily represented would be able to make good
selections of people who are expected to exercise those skills:
it is possible, but I'd find basing our future on that idea very
uncomfortable (and more uncomfortable the more autonomy the
Administrator is expected to have).

Giving the IETF Chair the appointment power might help with
this, especially if some consultation process were required.  At
least the IETF Chair is not chosen at random and, assuming the
Nomcom does its job, can be reasonably expected to have
leadership skills above the community average.  But the same
observations more or less still apply: we don't pick IETF Chairs
for that group of skills, nor for recognizing them, nor for
having contacts and knowledge of communities from which either
good candidates or good candidate-selectors might come.  If we
expect the IETF Chair (or the IAB Chair, or the IAB and/or IESG
as a whole) to have the fiscal and formal relationship
management skills needed to hire, manage, or aggressively
oversee the Administrator (or the type of models contemplated in
the document more generally), we are imposing additional
constraints and tasks on positions that are already too
time-consuming and too hard to fill and about which the Nomcom
may not have the perspective needed to make good decisions.

And I think that is pretty scary.

    john

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 08:13:24 +0200

[email-masked] wrote:
> I understand the desire to keep thing simple and that Carl is attempting 
> a simple fix to a single problem.  However, I think that any of the 
> decisions made on a simple fix have possible repercussions for the 
> entire relationship and for the IETF's ability to function as a 

I'm very puzzled. I though those two extremes were exactly described
by scenarios A and D.

    Brian

> would argue for since I don't fully understand the repercussions of each.
> 
> direction and pick an intermediate route that gave immediate solution to 
> the 'simple' problem problem involved in gaining control of the 
> administrative functions.  Whether that intermediate is A or C, would in 
> many ways depend on where we wanted to end up in the end.
> 
> a.
> 
>

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 09:10:47 -0400

> I'm very puzzled. I though those two extremes were exactly described

Perhaps I misread, but while I saw that A and D are the extremes of the 
scenarios represented to date, I was suggesting is that the extremes 
not yet discussed are:

- full integration into ISOC with the rework of the by-law that 
accommodates the standard's function. Scenario A tends toward this but 
does, seem to me, to go all the way.

- Creation of a parallel non profit incorporated Standards organization 
with its own by-laws  that is partnered though MOU's with ISOC.  
Scenario D might evoke this, but since the explanation of this Scenario 
is so brief, I have trouble understanding its implications.

In both I have trouble understanding the full implications in terms of 
items not within the administrative domain.

If A really does equal full integration and D really does equal full 
independence, then I will stand corrected, though I will remain 
confused about some of the implications.

a.

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 09:40:22 -0400

I believe that the difference between what Avri is discussing and 
what is discussed in Carl's draft is that Avri is talking about 
incorporating the IETF (the standards function), either as part of 
ISOC or as an independent entity, not just the administrative support 
function.  Carl's draft limits itself to options for organizing the 
administrative support function.

Margaret

At 9:10 AM -0400 9/7/04, [email-masked] wrote:
>Perhaps I misread, but while I saw that A and D are the extremes of 
>the scenarios represented to date, I was suggesting is that the 
>extremes not yet discussed are:
>
>accommodates the standard's function. Scenario A tends toward this 
>but does, seem to me, to go all the way.
>
>- Creation of a parallel non profit incorporated Standards 
>organization with its own by-laws  that is partnered though MOU's 
>with ISOC.  Scenario D might evoke this, but since the explanation 
>of this Scenario is so brief, I have trouble understanding its 
>implications.
>
>In both I have trouble understanding the full implications in terms 
>of items not within the administrative domain.
>