Subject: IASA and International issues

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:56:39 +0100

Sam,
after reviewing it today on a mailing list, here is the part I propose to 
insert in Part 7, after the "Independence" part:

International: ISOC shall work with its national Chapters, the IAD and IAOC 
to document how the IETF meetings and the Internet standard process could 
benefit from the local presence, market knowledge and languages familiarity 
of these Chapters.

Comments conveyed some surprise that ISOC could assist the IETF and they 
would be left out. I suppose there are some Members of national ISOC 
Chapters in here: their opinion could help.
jfc

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

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 00:36:11 +0100

Harald,
I have serious moral concerns accepting your response below.

At 10:10 31/01/2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>>3. Regional representation. Most of the Internet organizations make sure
>>their BoD is regionally distributed. This is not appropriate for a
>>technical entity, however IAOC is an administrative body. I would suggest
>>the Draft Section 4 to include a recommendation (not an obligation) that
>>all the main parts of the world are represented at the IAOC. Cost: 2
>>lines to be added.
>
>The IAOC is an administrative body for a technical entity. So "not 
>appropriate" applies.

This answer would only make sense if technical competences were required 
due to the technical nature of the entity.

But the Draft says: "While there are no hard rules regarding how the IAB 
and the IESG should select members of the IAOC, such appointees need not be 
current IAB or IESG members (and probably should not be, if only to avoid 
overloading the existing leadership).  The IAB and IESG should choose 
people with some knowledge of contracts and financial procedures, who are 
familiar with the administrative support needs of the IAB, the IESG, or the 
IETF standards process."

This means that no technical competence is required. But legal and 
financial abilities are required. These abilities are required to contract 
tasks all over the world. I therefore asked that ISOC Chapters are possibly 
called upon to assist. Your response is:

>The IETF has never attempted to have an organization along geographical 
>lines. ISOC has such an organization, but that bears no formal 
>relationship with the standards process. This document is not about 
>changing the standards process.

You object again on technical grounds. Yet the need is not for technical 
but for legal and financial competences. The Internet standard process has 
nothing to do with legal local competence, or wise assistance in selecting 
a local contractor or cutting a good and cheaper contract.

The concern is that you do not want to use the ISOC capacity to better 
legally and financially manage/advise the IASA, also that you favor the 
possibility to influence the choice of contractors location through the 
choice of IAOC members. I think there is there a source of COI and protests 
for lack of transparency.

I therefore insist for the above paragraph to be slightly modified in using 
"[The IAB and IESG should chose] people from the various regions of the 
world [with some knowledge of contracts ....]".

Please, consider that this document will probably not be reviewed before a 
few years and that such issues which will gain importance over the coming 
years would be far more difficult to address as a specific update than 
through a Draft amendment.

jfc

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 17:38:58 -0800

"JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]> writes:
> legally and financially manage/advise the IASA, also that you favor
> the possibility to influence the choice of contractors location
> through the choice of IAOC members. I think there is there a source of
> COI and protests for lack of transparency.
>
> I therefore insist for the above paragraph to be slightly modified in
> using "[The IAB and IESG should chose] people from the various regions
> of the world [with some knowledge of contracts ....]".

For the record, this is a terrible idea to codify. This is precisely
the sort of policy matter that the IESG and IAB should decide
for themselves.

-Ekr

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 05:55:14 +0100

>the sort of policy matter that the IESG and IAB should decide

Eric,
I make a difference, and this is why I ask the change, between the IAB and 
IESG where the global technical expertise is of the essence, and the IAOC 
where field legal, financial and organizational skills are looked for. 
Also, IAB and IESG people do not sign commercial contracts.

jfc

PS. Changing IESG and IAB policy would be to change the Internet standard 
process. This is *not* the intent. However the "international" addition I 
also request may help the IAD to document the IAB and IESG how the ISOC 
Chapters support *could* (I do not know, but I do not want to lose the 
opportunity if it exists) better support that process in some cases, and 
most probably help the IETF meetings organization.

ISOC France has proven its ability to organize international top level 
gatherings and socializing. We could certainly help. To follow on the 
Draft-Phillips-languages-08.txt key issues, my organization will set-up a 
range of Culture/Language oriented meetings. I would certainly be happy to 
coordinate through the ISOC Chapter and guest a meeting of the 
[email-masked] list members who would happen to be at the 
Paris meeting.

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 20:57:55 -0800

"JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]> writes:

> I make a difference, and this is why I ask the change, between the IAB
> and IESG where the global technical expertise is of the essence, and
> the IAOC where field legal, financial and organizational skills are
> looked for. Also, IAB and IESG people do not sign commercial contracts.

Yes. I understand that. I'm saying that IAB and IESG should decide
which criteria they use to select IAOC members.

-Ekr

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 14:25:49 -0500

Jefsey, you are proposing involving the regional and local chapters in
the standards process.

That's a major shift both for the ISOC and for the IETF.  It's also
inconsistent as far as I can tell with what other organizations like
IEEE that have both chapters and standards-related activities do.

I agree with you that some members of regional and local ISOC chapters
would (and do) bring significant value to the standards process.

I question though whether directly involving the regional and local
chapters would actually be the right way of involving these people why
not involve them directly?

Also, I'm concerned that there might be some significant disadvantages
to directly involving regional and local chapters in the standards
work.  Traditionally we've had problems/friction when
marketing/management types get involved in the IETF.  At best it slows
things down.

However I think ISOC wants to have a broad appeal with its local
chapters pulling in people from all parts of Internet business.

--Sam

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 12:36:02 -0800 (PST)

Sam,

I completely agree. While it may be "politically correct" to involve the
ISOC chapters, it should not be a required course of action. It is also
worth noting that only a SMALL number of ISOC chapters are actually
active, have regular meetins, or even a web or e-mail presence. The
chapter model was adopted to allow global reach, but in a world where
people have little time for face-to-face meetings and conduct most of
their business "on line," this hasn't proved to be a very useful model.

There ARE a few exceptions, don't get me wrong, but they number maybe a
dozen or less chapters on a world-wide basis, with less than 100 people
involved by my guesstimate.

Ole (former VP for Chapters at ISOC)

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Academic Research and Technology Initiatives, Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   GSM: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [email-masked]  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 00:52:16 +0100

>Jefsey, you are proposing involving the regional and local chapters in

Dear Sam,
thank you responding seriously on this point. I value very much this, 
because the reel problem is, IMHO, to discuss it. And you point out the 
very concerns everyone should have.

First, I want to underline that I do not propose involving the regional and 
local chapters. I propose words for two things:

- that IAOC members are also retained for their regional competences. This 
is to avoid that the IASA lacks knowledge and competences which would make 
them consider or favor contractors from a single expensive area. This is 
CIO prevention and good management protection.

- that ISOC and their national (not local) Chapters discuss and report how 
they could bring their support to the IASA. This has nothing to do with the 
Internet standard process. However I do not hide that I hope some common 
case studies could lead active chapter to better contribute (through Last 
Calls or in organizing local mailing lists as some countries have tried, 
what is a good educational support). And some inactive chapter to wake up. 
And that this could help the IETF to wake up on 
international/multilingual/vernacular issues.

>IEEE that have both chapters and standards-related activities do.

This is no shift. The shift is in calling upon ISOC administrative hosting. 
The choice was between a self built structure and ISOC. ISOC was chosen and 
comes with an history, an image and a structure. The IASA will share that. 
As you say, this is totally apart from the IETF. But they will blur in 
people's mind. ICANN could have been hosted by ISOC: they said no for that 
reason. ICANN has a huge problem to be identified as an international 
organization. ISOC can help addressing that problem for the IETF and if not 
we have to make clear this was not our intent.

We are at a cross-road. IETF, IAB, ICANN, ISOC, etc. are increasingly 
identified as US centered organizations ("USOC or USOK"). They all pay a 
real effort to look and be international, but they still have very long way 
to go to be and to be accepted as multinational (what we all need if we 
want to avoid a balkanization of the Internet and a technical fragmentation).

My opinion is that if we keep their efforts separated they will be less 
efficient than if we permit them to be in synergy. But we have to make it a 
very flexible way, otherwise old rigidities - like here, in this case - 
will make it worse.

>would (and do) bring significant value to the standards process.

If they do it this is at personal level - as far as the Internet standard 
process is concerned.

And this is good except on the Multilingual Internet topic, but that topic 
is, right now, out of competence and interest of the IAB/Internet. This is 
something I disapprove, but if you read RFC 3869 and if you note that the 
RFC 3066 mailing list is not an IETF working group [however sponsored by 
the IETF Chair], if you read RFC 3490 which permits to prevent 
internationalized TLDs, etc. you must accept it.

Where national Chapters can contribute is in "selling" the Internet 
documents and IETF core values to their Govs and market. Also to provide 
feed back from their market to the IETF (I say could, not should). It is 
not in staying apart in a multilingual world that IETF and IAB will get 
increased support and R&D funding.

>not involve them directly?

Again, I do not know. But in calling upon ISOC we necessarily, in a way or 
another, attach their image to the IETF. For good of for bad. We have to 
tackle that aspect.

>marketing/management types get involved in the IETF.  At best it slows

:-) this is a genuine acknowledgment of the lack of desire of the IETF to 
get users of its deliverable involved. This is why I always tried to 
discuss the charter and the (pre) last call only. I think this is exactly 
what the Internet standard process calls for. My only disagreement with 
this is that the IESG should include users representatives to save time: 
when the market turn an RFC wrong it creates delays and confusion we could 
have spared (last example being the Draft on Langtags).

But again, this is not what I propose. What I propose is that, once again, 
the IAB/IETF do not send a strong "I am not interested" to all those who 
would like to feel the Internet standard process as also an home process. 
Because they are right now discussing how to build another more 
multilateral process.

>chapters pulling in people from all parts of Internet business.

Yes. I think every Internet entity should pull in the same direction and 
together. IETF can certainly help ISOC being nationally more attractive. 
ISOC to help the IASA to be more suscessful and cheaper when organizing an 
IETF meeting. ICANN failed there because they killed @large. ISOC can bring 
its own plus. All I say is: this may be one of the last chance of IETF to 
be accepted as multinational. I hate seeing it lost. Because the Internet 
can only be multilingual and its standardization forum can only be 
multinational.

I started working on a "Multilingual Internet documentation through the 
existing Internet standard process" draft this summer. I thought it 
possible, even if it is not a trivial architecturally demanding on the 
IABt. Even after the "RFC 3066bis" draft and this 
no-IASA-internationalization episodes I still think it possible. But I 
frankly consider that if nothing moves in that area this year, the IETF/IAB 
network architecture will be totally out-dated (has anyone investigated the 
real impact of a true multilingual and vernacular usage on applications and 
the way they will appropriate IPv6, totally changing naming and DNS, etc. )

I only hope we can progressively bring the IETF up to speed. Harald 
challenged me on that. I am not interested in a challenge. I only think we 
could together save a few years of delays, confusion and of the 
consequences of the delays and of the confusion (with all the related waste 
of time, money, efforts, motivation, sustainable development, etc.) in 
keeping the IETF as the "internet" standardizing body, rather than copying 
it elsewhere.

Nothing more. I do not know if there is still a chance, but I think it is 
worth trying it.
jfc