On 2 sep 2004, at 07.11, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Yes that would be helpful.
Well, I don't agree. I think it would defocus the discussion (which
is about putting the IETF's administration onto a business-like
basis). IMHO the only case in which we should discuss the wider
option is if the newtrk WG proposes changes in the standards process
that would make such a thing necessary.
I guess I don't understand this comment.
As I see it, one reason for another option would have to do with the
independence of the IETF to change its processes, should it want to.
Not necessarily because it has a plan today to do so.
One of the concerns I have over the ISOC dependent mechanisms, which I
guess is all of the presented options, is the link between budgeting
and process. If a process change requires a different form of
budgeting support, would the IETF need the approval of ISOC to make
that change? Often what seems like a purely technical decision has
policy and budgetary implications. Assuming that we don't want to have
reconsider the organizational relationship again in the near future, I
believe we need to take such possibilities into account.
I think another consideration in making these administrative decisions
has to do with the IETF's voice in the general standards and Internet
governance arena. Will ISOC, as a 'parent' organization - my
interpretation of the options that are offered, be the responsible
party for such activities? E.g. currently for a liaison to the ITU, it
is ISOC that is the liaison association. Should ISOC disagree with the
IETF position on a liaison matter who has the final say? Likewise with
the ongoing governance debate in the international arena, will ISOC or
the IETF be the negotiating body? And before we decide that this is
just policy and does not relate to protocol issues, we should not
ignore the intimate link between policy and technical - while it is not
always direct, there generally is a technical implication in policy
decisions and, generally, also a policy impact in technical decisions.
Basically I am concerned about the real independence of the IETF as a
technical standards body when ISOC, which the IETF does not control,
has the governing policy and financial voice.
I would be interested in seeing an analysis of an option which has the
IETF as a independent nonprofit corporate entity. This could be either
as a wholly owned subsidiary of ISOC, thus keeping the fiduciary
relationship, or as completely independent organization.
a.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf