I strongly support the basic proposal to put the IETF's administration
on a sound and well understood basis, with the transparency that
Carl's draft recommends. So I fundamentally support the thrust of
Section 3, Recommendations for Restructuring the Administrative
Framework. I have some doubts whether all the functions described
in Appendix F are really separable, but I regard that as a question
for the future Administrative Director in any case.
As for the major options suggested in Section 4, my preference is
very clearly for Scenario A, with a commitment to progressively
put in place some or all of the mechanisms outlined for Scenario B.
I think that is the best way to make rapid progress.
I simply can't see any need to spend time and money to create
an additional non-profit organization when we have a perfectly
good one in the shape of the ISOC. Scenario C gives us the
benefits of Scenario B plus extra overhead and complexity;
Scenario D gives us even more overhead, no guarantee of the
benefits, and a major risk of funding difficulties.
In the context of scenarios A and B, I have a small substantive
comment on Section 3.1:
Evaluation of applicants might consist of a search committee
appointed by the IETF Chair. The committee would conduct an initial
review of applications, possibly solicit additional applications, and
present a short-list for further consideration. This short list of
applicants could be reviewed by the IESG and IAB, possibly with
further interviews. The IESG and/or IAB should specify this
procedure more fully before beginning the search.
If the Admin Director is to be legally an ISOC employee, the
ISOC CEO would also need to be included in the procedure.
Finally, a reminder that I've served on the IAB and on the ISOC Board,
and contributed to RFC 3716, all of which may have coloured my opinions.
Brian Carpenter
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf