... snip ...
I think that option C brings little useful to the table. I fail to see
that incorporating the organizer of the IETF admin functions solves any
existing problem that is not better and more easily solved by options
A or B. Option C mostly adds the complication and expense of creating
a corporation whose purpose almost no one outside of the IETF, and
I expect few inside the IETF, would be able to untangle from the
purpose of the ISOC.
Scott, my personal view on this is that if we kust look at TODAY, then
you are correct. And so today I could live with scenario A or B (I think
I prefer some form of B in that case).
However... in the very distant past, I am sure that the relationship with
CNRI was very good too. And I am sure that at that time we were happy
and that we assumed nothing bad would happen (if we actually even though
of it). And one would think that if things were to get in a shape or
situation that we (IETF community) no longer find acceptable, then we
would expect that we (or our leadership) takes action or comes with
proposals for action. Oh well... not so easily. It drags on for long.
When I joined the IESG in 1998, I saw little if any problems with the
secretariat or CNRI. I did not know how meeting revenues were being used
to support the secretariat and all that. I learned that our IETF chair at
the time (together with you (Scott) if I recall correctly?) were negotiating
a contract with CNRI. The response that came back was that it needed some
more review on CNRI side and things were not easy... and a year or so went by.
The next rounds we needed the contract more, because the finacial side
was not transparent and not reported in a timely fashion and not in
enough detail. But again there were all sorts of unclear issues.
And so we went on for 6+ years (yep I have been on IESG that long).
And in the meantime the working relationship between IESG and Secretariat
also suffered. A lot of that had to do with increased workload, but also
with the fact that we did not have a good contract in place that documented
what the responsibilities and tasks were/are of secretariat and how we (IESG
and rest of community) interface/interact with secretariat. Let alone that
we (IESG/IETF) did not have control over finances so we could set priorities
on specific pieces of secretarial work that needed improvement.
Now the important lesson I learned here is that I think initially there
were good intentions and good relationships between CNRI and IETF. But they
degraded very slowly year over year and we still have no contract or MoU
or such in place. And it had to become really bad (my preception) before
we (IETF/IESG/IAB) finally took action to investigate and document our
major concerns in RFC3716.
In other words... things creep on you very slowly. And if you things go well
for a long time and then start to deteriorate very slowly, then it is tough
to stand up and cause trouble and REQUIRE/ORGANIZE change in a commonly agreed
manner. Specifically if one side is not eager to move swiftly.
Now... I assume and hope we will never get into such a situation with ISOC.
But I think that is what we (IETF) also assumed/hoped many years ago with CNRI.
If we were to go for option C, then in my personal view, it would have the
serious benefit that we are ALWAYS (from day 1) responsible to make sure
things work well. And we need to re-negotiate every so often if we want
to keep the relationships that we have or if we want to change them.
So in my view we would run far less risk to ever get in a similar situation
as where we are today. Yep... initially it will cost us some more money and
effort I suspect. But I think it is worth the price.
Note also, that I DO want the IETF to keep its curent relation with ISOC and
that I also DO want the new "IETF secretarial support function" to have very
strong relations with ISOC. We can and should work that out and then document
it so we all know what the relationship is.
But... this is just my personal view.
I hope it helps a constructive discussion.
Ietf mailing list