Re: isoc's skills

Dave,

Dave Crocker wrote:
> Brian,
>
>
> > > > ... I believe that policy concerns are best addressed by
> > > > ISOC.  Because ISOC's role in the standards process is at
> > > > one remove, it can work to educate legislatures and
> > > > administrations without appearing to favor one
> > > > participant over the other.
> > > That sounds wonderful, except that ISOC has no significant
> > > experience in that work and that work requires skill and
> > > experience.
>
> > ISOC, like IETF, is largely a volunteer organization as far
> > as this sort of work is concerned.  If the community wants
> > ISOC to take such a role, the community will also have to
> > provide the volunteers.
>
> I do not understand your point.  We are going to hand over all 
> administrative responsibilities for the IETF to a volunteer 
> effort?
No. Of course, as I said in my message, the ISOC has ten years'
experience of administering itself with professional, paid
staff on two continents, and experience of subcontracting
activities. That is where the IETF administration fits in.

But for activities such as advising national legislatures,
ISOC has always relied on high level volunteers (people like
Vint Cerf for example).

   Brian


> My guess is that the difference in our views is the difference 
> between theory and practice.  I am making an assertion about 
> ISOC's actual skills, based on its history of performance.  You 
> appear to be making assessment based on the theory of its 
> framework, or potential, or somesuch.
> ISOC "can work" to do all sorts of things.  The question is what 
> has it demonstrated skills in?  If the IETF is going to increase 
> its dependence on ISOC, then the IETF needs assurances that ISOC 
> can perform the tasks that the IETF needs.
> When we step away from theory and rhetoric, I believe we find 
> that ISOC has literally none of the necessary skills.  To the 
> extent that it has attempted relevant activities, I believe its 
> track record is poor, at best.  
>
> In general what I have noted about the discussion of 
> organizational structure/home for the IETF is that it pretty 
> complete lacks clear, precise, stable specification of the job we 
> want done.  So when I talk with individual about it, the details 
> of their response float all over the map.
> My experience with this sort of variability in responses is that 
> there is some sort of mystical hope that making some sort of 
> change will have major benefit.  However no one is able to state 
> any of this concretely.  And the outcome of such a process is 
> pretty much certain to be disappointing, at best.
> We want to delegate all sorts of responsibilities to ISOC; or 
> maybe we want ISOC to delegate them to 'experts'.  We want ISOC 
> to handle the IETF budget, but we do not believe we are handing 
> ISOC any additional power over the IETF. And so on.
> I have tried to list specific problems with the IETF and note 
> that none of them will be improved by the current structural 
> work.  Most will not be affected at all.  What I have noted is 
> the lack of specificity in any responses about this.  It is 
> significant that this line of enquiry is not pursued further.
> As nearly as I can tell, the IETF leadership's current concern is 
> that CNRI/Foretec have too much power and too little 
> accountability.  What is being proposed is, frankly, hand over 
> exactly that same role to ISOC.  CNRI would be replaced by ISOC.
> Now the obvious and vigorous responses to this assessment is that 
> there will be vastly greater accountability, that there will be 
> an MOU, that ISOC are good people with good intentions, and so 
> on.
> All of that might well be true, but it ignores that 
> organizational behavior reality that different organizations 
> always have different goals, at some point.  A relationship needs 
> to be developed with very precise and appropriate specification 
> of the details to that relationship.  
>
> To that end, I suspect the single most important piece of work is 
> the MOU.  Rather than discussing high-level structural 
> abstractions, we should be discussing the precise contents of a 
> specification for the job we want done.  
>
> When we have agreed on those details, we can present them to all 
> sorts of people and organizations, including ISOC (and, by the 
> way, CNRI).  What should ensue, then, is a negotiation for 
> performance of those tasks.
> Where is the public discussion and refinement of that work?
>
>
>
> > > As has been commented to me repeatedly in recent months,
> > > when someone in government wants to obtain advice about
> > > the Internet and about Internet policy, they do not
> > > regularly consult ISOC. ISOC does not regularly testify in
> > > Congress.
> > ISOC is international and is currently active in WSIS, the
> > international debate including Internet policy issues. If you
> > want ISOC to take part in national policy-setting in your
> > country, it's in your hands. That's one of the things ISOC
> > chapters can do.
>
> The reference to the US Congress was an exemplar.  And 
> "participation" in WSIS could mean lots of things.  I have gone 
> to some ITU meetings, but that does not place me in the role of 
> providing policy leadership to the ITU.
> If someone is going to claim that ISOC is in a leadership 
> position for Internet policy-setting groups, then it would be 
> helpful to see description of its activities in the regard that 
> show actual leadership.  Going to meetings is not enough. Running 
> a workship is not enough.  Policy-setting is an ongoing political 
> dialogue.  Where are ISOC's political skills?
>
>
> > > More generally, as folks postulate spiffy functions for
> > > ISOC, it might be worth asking where ISOC's expertise for
> > > that function has been demonstrated.
> > > That includes minor items like operational administration
> > > of a standards body.
> > Well, nobody has demonstrated that skill as far as the IETF
> > is concerned, because we've never put *all* the
> > administration into one place. 
>
> I am afraid that this is another example of how muddied 
> discussion of this topic is.  (And that's not a criticism of you 
> in particular.  I think the issue is the entire tone and content 
> of the community discussion and, apparently, the leadership's 
> internal discussions.)
> I did not say we do not need to rationalize things.  I think the 
> portion of the Advisory Committee's report that did problem 
> analysis was excellent.  We need to rationalize accounting, 
> accountability and authority.
> My point is that there seems to be a mystical belief that we can 
> hand everything over to ISOC and it will solve everything.  In 
> fact it will solve nothing.  
>
> The solution(s) lie in the details that can only be accomplished 
> by the IETF, itself, unless we simply want to make the IETF a 
> wholly-owned subsidiary of the organization we hand ourselves 
> over to.
> Obviously, lots of folks do not agree with my assessment.  What 
> is lacking is anything concrete and detailed to explain why.
>
>
> > But ISOC has administered
> > itself for the last ten years, through good times and bad.
>
> Frankly, Brian, this statement is rather scary.  
>
> First of all, the ability for an organization to administer 
> itself has nothing at all to do with its ability to perform the 
> job the IETF is considering giving to ISOC.  
>
> Second of all, ISOC's extremely problematic history is not likely 
> to serve as a recommendation for its ability to perform whatever 
> the heck it is we are currently asking of it.
> d/
>
>
>
>
> d/
> --
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> +1.408.246.8253
> dcrocker  a t ...
> www.brandenburg.com

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf