Re: Options for IETF administrative restructuring

I'd like to provide one point of important clarification:
the ISOC trustees appointed by the IETF do *not* represent the IETF.
So, while I agree firmly that the IETF's relationship to ISOC is
closer than the IETF's relationship to any other organization,
I disagree strongly that "the IETF" has "a strong management role in
ISOC" as it stands today.

The IETF, through the IAB (as outlined in RFC3677), selects individuals
to fill ISOC Board seats.  The IAB has consistently sought individuals
with management, leadership and/or administrative backgrounds
appropriate for helping ISOC as a whole organization, to fill those
seats.  We (the IAB, the IETF) do not treat those trustees any
differently than any other trustees on the ISOC Board; there is no
advice given, no reporting sought.  The only time we (the IAB)
have sat down with that collection of trustees specifically was when we
were seeking input on whether or not there were additional things we
should have considered in our selection process (that
our original 3 appointees learned after we'd dropped them in).

I can't speak to whether the folks appointed by the IETF *feel* some
obligation to represent IETF perspectives, but there is no formal
expectation or mechanism for them to do so.

While we *could* turn that into a representational appointment, that
would represent a change in the status quo, probably would
require different appointment procedures within the IETF, and perhaps
some additional reporting duties.


Leslie.


Steve Crocker wrote:
> Bert, et al.,
>
> Thanks for your note.  I too have watched the evolution of the
> relationship with CNRI for a long time.  I served on the IESG from 1989
> to 1994 when Phill gross was the IETF chair, and I served on the IAB for
> another two years.  I co-chaired the POISED working group which
> reorganized the relationship between the IAB and the IETF and instituted
> the nomcomm, so I empathize quite a lot with your concerns.  That said,
> let me suggest three things, the last of which is, in my view, the most
> important.
>
> 1. In my view, the relationship between the IETF and ISOC is not at all
> similar to the relationship between the IETF and CRNI.  The IETF already
> has a strong management role in ISOC.  The IETF has seats on the ISOC
> board, it has complete visibility into the budget, and other specific
> formal controls.  That is, it's not a distant, separated relationship,
> but one where the IETF is already deep inside.  To a great extent, the
> IETF has as much control over ISOC as it would have over a new
> organization it might try to establish.  And speaking for myself, if the
> IETF needs greater visibility and/or representation within ISOC, I'd
> support whatever changes in ISOC governance are needed.  ISOC was
> founded to be a home for the IETF and it has functioned in that role
> since its inception.  And a large percentage of the ISOC members and
> board are people who have grown up in the IETF.
>
> 2. I have trouble understanding option C.  It's a lot of mechanism that
> doesn't have a clear purpose.  We can dig into the details as deeply as
> desired, but I truly believe it's a quagmire.  Some people who advocate
> it view it as merely a glitzier form of A or B.  Others view it as a
> version of D dressed up so it doesn't seem quite so confrontational.  I
> think it creates a whole series of problems and doesn't provide any real
> protection.  If a real breach does develop between the IETF and ISOC in
> a way that doesn't get addressed sensibly through the very strong
> structures and protections that are already built in, then the IETF can
> walk away and create another legal home, develop its own source of
> funding, and take on the full load of being a separate and independent
> organization.
>
> 3. As I understand it, the administrative restructuring effort was
> stimulated by problems with the support functions.  The problems had
> reached the point where the IETF's work was not getting done.
> Discussions with the supporting organizations, particularly
> CNRI/Foretec, didn't resolve the problems, at least in part because the
> contractual and management relationship wasn't clear.  I believe there
> is now clear agreement that much cleaner management and budget authority
> is required.  One way or another, there will be unified management in
> place to oversee the support functions.  That much is good.  What is not
> so good, in my opinion, is the lack of focus on what needs to be fixed
> in the support functions.  The IESG area directors are perhaps the most
> affected and have the most knowledge in this regard, but I'm sure
> working group chairs and many others have much to say.  Irrespective of
> whether one chooses option A, B, C or D as the framework, the real work
> will come in restructuring the support functions and working out the
> details of who does what.  I've been surprised at how little discussion
> there's been along this line.  If things were broken enough to bring the
> relationship with the support functions to a head, then surely it's time
> to lay out what needs to be fixed.
>
> What aspects of the IETF's operation hasn't been served properly?  Some
> possibilities that come to mind are:
>
> O Turn around time in the Secretariat, IANA and/or RFC Editor hasn't
> been fast enough.
>
> O Information flow hasn't been timely or accurate.
>
> O Coordination among the support functions and between the support
> functions and the IETF hasn't been satisfactory.
>
> O Automation has been weak and stovepiped.
>
> I can't speak authoritatively about these, and perhaps I've missed some
> important questions.  But it seems to me that this is where we need some
> attention with constructive suggestions on how to proceed.
>
> (I left out discussion of the meetings.  This is also important, and
> there has been some specifics discussed on this list regarding meetings.
> This is good.)
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On 
> > Behalf Of Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> > Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 6:07 PM
> > To: sob(_at_)harvard(_dot_)edu'.cnri.reston.va.us; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > Subject: RE: Options for IETF administrative restructuring
> >
> >
> > Scott writes:
> >
> > ... snip ...
> >
> > > I think that option C brings little useful to the table.  I fail to 
> > > see that incorporating the organizer of the IETF admin functions 
> > > solves any existing problem that is not better and more 
> > easily solved 
> >
> > > by options A or B.  Option C mostly adds the complication  
> > and expense 
> >
> > > of creating a corporation whose purpose almost no one 
> > outside of the 
> >
> > > IETF, and I expect few inside the IETF, would be able to 
> > untangle from 
> >
> > > the purpose of the ISOC.
> > Scott, my personal view on this is that if we kust look at 
> > TODAY, then 
> > you are correct. And so today I could live with scenario A or 
> > B (I think 
> > I prefer some form of B in that case). 
> >
> > However... in the very distant past, I am sure that the 
> > relationship with CNRI was very good too. And I am sure that 
> > at that time we were happy and that we assumed nothing bad 
> > would happen (if we actually even though 
> > of it). And one would think that if things were to get in a shape or 
> > situation that we (IETF community) no longer find acceptable, 
> > then we would expect that we (or our leadership) takes action 
> > or comes with 
> > proposals for action. Oh well... not so easily. It drags on for long.
> > When I joined the IESG in 1998, I saw little if any problems 
> > with the secretariat or CNRI. I did not know how meeting 
> > revenues were being used 
> > to support the secretariat and all that. I learned that our 
> > IETF chair at 
> > the time (together with you (Scott) if I recall correctly?) 
> > were negotiating a contract with CNRI. The response that came 
> > back was that it needed some more review on CNRI side and 
> > things were not easy... and a year or so went by. The next 
> > rounds we needed the contract more, because the finacial side 
> > was not transparent and not reported in a timely fashion and not in 
> > enough detail. But again there were all sorts of unclear 
> > issues. And so we went on for 6+ years (yep I have been on 
> > IESG that long). And in the meantime the working relationship 
> > between IESG and Secretariat also suffered. A lot of that had 
> > to do with increased workload, but also with the fact that we 
> > did not have a good contract in place that documented what 
> > the responsibilities and tasks were/are of secretariat and 
> > how we (IESG and rest of community) interface/interact with 
> > secretariat. Let alone that we (IESG/IETF) did not have 
> > control over finances so we could set priorities on specific 
> > pieces of secretarial work that needed improvement.
> > Now the important lesson I learned here is that I think 
> > initially there were good intentions and good relationships 
> > between CNRI and IETF. But they degraded very slowly year 
> > over year and we still have no contract or MoU or such in 
> > place. And it had to become really bad (my preception) before 
> > we (IETF/IESG/IAB) finally took action to investigate and 
> > document our major concerns in RFC3716.
> > In other words... things creep on you very slowly. And if you 
> > things go well 
> > for a long time and then start to deteriorate very slowly, 
> > then it is tough 
> > to stand up and cause trouble and REQUIRE/ORGANIZE change in 
> > a commonly agreed manner. Specifically if one side is not 
> > eager to move swiftly.
> > Now... I assume and hope we will never get into such a 
> > situation with ISOC. But I think that is what we (IETF) also 
> > assumed/hoped many years ago with CNRI.
> > If we were to go for option C, then in my personal view, it 
> > would have the serious benefit that we are ALWAYS (from day 
> > 1) responsible to make sure things work well. And we need to 
> > re-negotiate every so often if we want to keep the 
> > relationships that we have or if we want to change them. So 
> > in my view we would run far less risk to ever get in a 
> > similar situation as where we are today. Yep... initially it 
> > will cost us some more money and effort I suspect. But I 
> > think it is worth the price.
> > Note also, that I DO want the IETF to keep its curent 
> > relation with ISOC and that I also DO want the new "IETF 
> > secretarial support function" to have very strong relations 
> > with ISOC. We can and should work that out and then document 
> > it so we all know what the relationship is.
> > But... this is just my personal view.
> > I hope it helps a constructive discussion.
> >
> > Bert
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf mailing list
> > Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality:
     Yours to discover."
                                -- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
leslie(_at_)thinkingcat(_dot_)com
-------------------------------------------------------------------


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