draft-lyons-proposed-changes-statement-00.txt
2004-10-05 07:08:26
Hi Patrice,
I noticed the Internet-Draft that you posted regarding IETF
Administrative Restructuring, and I have a few comments on it,
speaking as one interested member of the IETF community to another.
For those who have not seen Patrice's draft, it can be found at:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lyons-proposed-changes-statement-00.txt
I found the history section of this draft to be quite interesting and
informative. Thank you for sharing it.
I think it is important for the IETF community to understand and
appreciate the huge contributions of many key individuals and groups,
including Bob Kahn and CNRI, in helping us to achieve our past and
current success.
The draft also points out CNRI's commitment to supporting the IETF
through this administrative restructuring process in accordance with
the consensus of the IETF community. I would personally like to
thank you, and especially Bob Kahn, for your contributions to this
process and for your willingness to support the IETF through this
transition.
The primary proposal in your draft seems to be that we should
incorporate the IETF (including the standards function), and ask the
current IESG to serve as the Board of Directors. The IETF would then
hire an Executive Director and contract for administrative services
directly.
A few others have also suggested that we incorporate the IETF itself,
rather than defining a separate administrative support function, and
that possibility was briefly discussed on the IETF list in early
September (see Harald's September 2nd post with the subject "What to
incorporate"). On the surface, it seems simpler and more obvious to
incorporate the IETF than to incorporate a separate administrative
support function (as in Scenario C), or to organize our
administrative support function under an existing corporation (as in
Scenario O). So, I do think that there is something compelling about
your proposal.
However, several people have pointed out the importance of keeping
the cash flow (meeting fees, donations, meeting sponsorships and
contracts for support services) separate from the IETF standards
process itself, in order to maintain the independence and credibility
of our technical work. It has been pointed out that other major
standards bodies, such as the IEEE and INCITS/ITS have chosen to
separate their financial and administrative functions from their
standards work, and that these groups serve as a model that the IETF
might choose to follow. So, it is quite possible that incorporating
the IETF itself would actually require setting up two separate
corporations -- a standards function (that deals only with our
technical work) and an administrative support function (that deals
with all administrative, financial and contractual matters).
In my personal opinion, one of our paramount concerns in this process
should be to maintain the integrity and credibility of the IETF as an
independent standards body, and I believe that maintaining a
separation between our standards function and our administrative
support function is vital to maintaining that integrity and
credibility. Do you agree that this type of separation is important?
If so, how would you maintain that separation in your proposal?
If you accept that the standards function and the administrative
support function should be separate, then it is possible to discuss
restructuring and formalizing our administrative support function,
while leaving the IETF standards function as-is -- a loosely-defined,
unincorporated entity. In my personal opinion, this is the best path
to follow at this time, as I see no particular benefit to
incorporating the IETF standards function. Do you see benefits to
incorporating the IETF standards function that I may be missing?
Have you had an opportunity to read the Scenario C and Scenario O
proposals that are currently under discussion on the IETF list? You
can find them here:
Scenario C: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg31321.html
Scenario O: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg31326.html
I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts and feedback
regarding these two scenarios, as I believe that you may have a
unique perspective to offer regarding the organizational, legal and
functional impacts of these choices.
Thanks again for your contributions to this discussion so far, and I
hope that you will continue to participate in these discussions as an
interested and knowledgeable member of the IETF community.
Margaret
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread> |
- draft-lyons-proposed-changes-statement-00.txt,
Margaret Wasserman <=
|
|
|