Joel,
Thanks for your comments.
First, incorporation of the IETF. While there are many reasons why
incorporation of an association is desirable, one important reason for a
technical association like IETF to incorporate is the substantial increase
in exposure to potential liabilities arising from conflicting patent claims
that has arisen over the last few years. In this context, there has been
some talk of donation recently of patents for IETF, particularly a group
of patents, for IETF purposes at little or no cost.
What happens if a group of pooled patents is donated to IETF by the very
organization that also controls funding for the IETF? What happens if such
an organization is under no direct control by the IETF and takes steps that
embroil the IETF in patent litigation? Where an organization has a Board
of Directors or Trustees that are drawn for the most part from a corporate
group that may have some direct interest in seeing say a patented
architecture dominate any architecture or architectural elements viewed as
competitive, and decides to use funding as a mechanism to influence IETF
decisions, say withholding funds from the IETF that would enable the IETF
to retain a patent attorney to mount a legal challenge, how is the IETF to
continue to operate effectively in the public interest?
In posing these questions, a further suggestion comes to mind:
perhaps the proposed new IETF Foundation could also receive patent
donations. Then the IETF could independently consider, in accordance
with the IETF procedures, whether or not to accept such donations
and to establish a working group(s) to further vet them. But this may be
a bit complicated to get into at this stage of the dialogue. The basic
steps of filing incorporation papers -- really not expensive or time
consuming -- and encouraging the establishment of the proposed IETF
Foundation appear to be a reasonable way forward that wouldn't
require much effort.
Second, you raised a question about ISOC. While my comments didn't single
out ISOC, if ISOC is viewed as a fundraising entity or an actual source of
funds for the IETF, and is also the organization charged with hiring an
Administrative Director for the IETF and supervising his/her efforts such
as contracting with third parties for IETF support services, I would again
assert: where are the checks and balances. The functions of funder and/or
fundraiser should be separate from control of what consitutes a CEO for
the IETF, particularly since the current plans being discussed would appear
to relegate the IETF oversight of such functions to an intermediary group.
What I term the IETF Executive Director would be hired by the IETF
itself and remain under its direct supervision (please not: this is a
different role from the current job description of the Executive Director
of the IETF Secretariat).
Regards,
Patrice
P.S. I've just subscribed to the IETF discussion list and, although I've
cc'd it on my reply to you, please share my comments with the list in
the event I'm not listed yet. Thx.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <joel(_at_)stevecrocker(_dot_)com>
To: <palyons(_at_)cox(_dot_)net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 6:00 PM
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-lyons-proposed-changes-statement-01.txt
Many of the items in this draft (and its earlier version) are very
interesting and helpful.
However, I am missing a step in your reasoning.
You state "it appears desirable for ... to reconsider the current legal
status of the Internet Engineering Task Force." I understand your
statement that establishing a corporate structure is not really a very
difficult or expensive step. (I think given this community, establishing
such a structure that the community is happy with may be hard, but I
understand that the legal side may well not be difficult.)
What I am missing is the supporting argument for why it is important to
make such a change at this time. Given the many problems the organization
is currently facing, it would seem that spending energy examining / making
this sort of change would have to be driven by a significant benefit. It
is possible that you did spell out this benefit, and I missed it reading
through this document.
On a related note, you seem to be arguing that a new funding body,
distinct from ISOC, should be created. Given that ISOC sees funding the
IETF as one of its primary roles, I would wonder why we would want to
duplicate that function.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
At 10:35 AM 10/20/2004 -0400, you wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
Title : IETF: Proposed Organizational Changes
Author(s) : P. Lyons
Filename :
draft-lyons-proposed-changes-statement-01.txt,.pdf
Pages : 0
Date : 2004-10-19
This memo outlines the nature of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF) as an unincorporated association, reviews some history of the
IETF Secretariat relevant to the current structure of the organization,
and proposes steps that might be taken to move forward in the interest
of the Internet community more generally. Since the IETF serves as a
focal point in the technical evolution of the Internet infrastructure,
it is important that any organizational changes take into account the
wider public interest. Considerations of who provides support to the
IETF hinge on the legal status of the IETF itself. Steps should be
taken to clarify this matter as a first priority.
A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lyons-proposed-changes-statement-01.txt
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf