Re: Options for IETF administrative restructuring
2004-09-06 19:41:39
On 9/6/04 at 3:11 PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
The benefit of C is (in my opinion) that it does not assume a
default (strong) relationship, but that it requires both
organisations to actively want to continue/renew the relationship
every so many years. And such checkpoints are nice and good points
where the relationship can (and in my view will) be evaluated and
if any friction has developed then at such checkpoints the friction
can (timely and naturally) be corrected.
That is true enough, but is it really enough to justify the overhead
costs and work of creating a new legal entity? Certainly the
agreements under scenario B (or even A) should include "explosive
bolts" in case the IETF becomes unsatisfied, and regular reviews are
an execllent idea.
I absolutely agree with Brian (and disagree with Scott) about the
need for "explosive bolts" in case the IETF (or ISOC for that matter)
becomes unsatisfied under solution A or B. With such a set of
explosive bolts, I'd more than likely be happy with solution A or B.
The problem I have, and the reason to this point I've been leaning
toward C along with Bert, is that nobody has even given me a hint of
what those explosive bolts might look like. For example, in the A vs.
B discussion that's been going on, there has been quite a bit of talk
about an "MoU between ISOC and IETF." But as Margaret points out:
I don't understand what legal entity would hold up the "IETF" end of
this MOU. Currently when someone needs to make a contract with the
IETF (the RFC Editor, another standards group, a hotel, etc.) that
contract is signed by either ISOC or CNRI/Foretec acting on behalf
of the IETF. Do you know of some way that the IETF (by which I
think you mean the standards development portion) can be an MOU
signatory?
Down the road, if the make-up of the ISOC BoT and ISOC by-laws change
significantly and they become dissatisfied, what is to stop them from
simply saying, "We've decided to exit this MoU and take your support
services with us."? Or if the IETF becomes dissatisfied with the
relationship, what would there be to allow us to say, "We'd like our
support services out of the control of ISOC."? As others have said,
there's no sign of either of these things happening, but we do need
to plan for the contingencies. If there is no legal entity on the
other end of that MoU, I'm afraid we could end up having to repeat
this entire process again in what will surely be (should this
terrible scenario come to pass) another state great angst. I think it
would be irresponsible to leave that legacy to our descendants.
In scenario C, it's easy for me to see what happens if all hell
breaks loose: We have a legal administrative entity whose entire
raison d'etre is "provide administrative services to the IETF
standards body." If the relationship with (or mission of) the ISOC
changes, that won't change a bit the relationship between the
administrative entity and the IETF standards body. The administrative
entity can simply say, "So long, and thanks for all the fish." Or
ISOC could say, "Sorry, we don't like the way your spending our money
anymore; go find your own money." However unpleasant a time that
would be, the IETF would still have an administrative support entity
that can continue its administrative support mission without having
to go through yet another administrative restructuring.
(Note that even if all hell did break loose, the IETF standards body
could even conceivably maintain its current process relationship with
ISOC--choosing NomCom chairs, being an appeals body, etc.--at that
point if it so desired.)
I understand that C is additional cost for an insurance policy that
we may never need to cash in, but at this point it seems worth it. If
someone could describe to me what the explosive bolts look like that
would get us a similar result with scenarios A & B, I would be much
more at ease with those choices.
pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
|
|