Following up on my note from this morning...
Leslie Daigle wrote:
Accordingly, some people volunteered to write down some text
for each, drawing on and extending Carl's documents. The
outcome of that writing exercise will be circulated here
later today -- i.e., a note describing a possible implementation
of Scenario C in more detail, and a separate note describing
the derived scenario (dubbed "Scenario O").
One thing that is important to note about these notes
is that there is a lot of commonality in their structure,
and a number of places where the text could have been
copied from one to the other. For example, both have
some form of oversight board or committee. The details as
written, however, *do* differ between the notes. This
is because the contexts are slightly different for the
2 scenarios, and because the differences amount to details
we can debate and fix if we pick one of these to move
forward with. I.e., "who is a voting member of the oversight
group" should not be a deciding factor in whether you
think the revised Scenario C is better than Scenario O, or
vice versa.
The IAB and IESG have not discussed these extensively, but have
helped to try and get better and clarified documentation of each
of those Scenarios. The IESG and IAB are now reviewing them
in detail. We are also following your discussions/comments
very carefully, and based on that they will evaluate to try
and come to a recommendation. So we are eagerly awaiting your
thoughts and inputs on whether either of these seems to be
a viable path or what further work needs to be done.
Here is some text describing a scenario derived from Carl's
Scenarios A & B.
Not an Internet-Draft L. Daigle
VeriSign
M. Wasserman
ThingMagic
September 20, 2004
AdminRest Scenario O: An IETF-Directed Activity Housed Under the
Internet Society (ISOC) Legal Umbrella
Abstract
This document defines an alternative proposal for the structure of
the IETF's administrative support activity (IASA) -- an IETF-defined
and directed activity that operates within the ISOC legal umbrella.
It proposes the creation of an IETF Administrative Oversight
Committee (IAOC) that is selected by and accountable to the IETF
community. This committee would provide oversight for the IETF
administrative support activity, which would be housed within the
ISOC legal umbrella. In order to allow the community to properly
evaluate this scenario, some draft BCP wording is included.
Daigle & Wasserman [Page 1]
AdminRest Scenario O September 2004
Table of Contents
1. Overview of Scenario O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Draft of Administrative Support BCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1 Definition of the IETF Administrative Support Activity
(IASA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.1 Structure of the IASA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.2 IAD Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.3 IAOC Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.4 IASA Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2 IAOC Membership, Selection and Accountability . . . . . . 7
2.3 IASA Budget Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4 Relationship of the IAOC to Existing IETF Leadership . . . 10
2.5 ISOC Responsibilities for IASA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3. Workplan for Formalizing the IETF Administrative Support
Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1 Workplan Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2 Workplan Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3 Approval by the IETF Community and ISOC . . . . . . . . . 13
3.4 Selecting IASA Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.5 Recruiting the IETF Administrative Director . . . . . . . 14
3.6 Establishing Agreement with Service Providers . . . . . . 14
3.7 Establishing a 2005 Operating Budget . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.8 Proposed Schedule for IASA Transition . . . . . . . . . . 15
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Daigle & Wasserman [Page 2]
AdminRest Scenario O September 2004
1. Overview of Scenario O
IETF community discussions of the scenarios for administrative
restructuring presented in Carl Malamud's consultant report
[I-D.malamud-consultant-report] have led to the identification of a
potentially viable alternative that is not included in that report --
an IETF-defined and directed administrative support function housed
under the ISOC legal umbrella (called "IASA" hereafter). This new
scenario retains some properties of the original ISOC-based
scenarios, Scenarios A and B. However, this new scenario aims to
provide:
o continued close relationship with ISOC
o a clear basis from which the IETF can define (and, over time,
refine) the administrative activity in terms of IETF community
needs, using existing IETF/ISOC processes
o an operational oversight board that is accountable to the IETF
community
o continued separation between the IETF standards activity and any
fund-raising for standards work (within ISOC)
o appropriate ISOC oversight of its standards activities funds
This scenario is nicknamed "Scenario O" -- it is derived from, but
does not entirely encompass, Scenario A or Scenario B.
In Scenario O, the IETF administrative support function would be
defined in a BCP that would be created via the IETF standards process
[RFC2026] and approved by the ISOC Board of Trustees. This BCP would
describe the scope of an IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA)
and would define the structure and responsibilities of the IETF
Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC), an IETF-selected body
responsible for overseeing the IASA. Like the Internet Architecture
Board (IAB), the IASA would be housed within the ISOC legal umbrella.
The BCP would also describe ISOC's responsibilities within this
scenario, including requirements for financial accounting and
transparency. A draft of this BCP is included in the next section of
this document.
Scenario O allows us to establish IETF control over our
administrative support functions in terms of determining that they
meet the community's needs, and adjusting them from time to time
using IETF processes. At the same time, it does not require that the
IETF community determine, create and undertake the risks associated
with an appropriate corporate structure (with similar financial
Daigle & Wasserman [Page 3]
AdminRest Scenario O September 2004
infrastructure and tax-exempt status to ISOC's) in order to solve the
pressing administrative issues outlined in [RFC3716]. This proposal
also defines the boundaries of the IASA so that it could be
encapsulated and moved elsewhere at some future date, should that
ever be desirable.
2. Draft of Administrative Support BCP
This section proposes draft text for a BCP that would define the
scope and structure of the IASA. Although this text would require
further refinement within the IETF community, this section is
intended to be clear and complete enough to allow the community to
reach a well-informed opinion regarding this scenario.
2.1 Definition of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA)
The IETF undertakes its technical activities as an ongoing, open,
consensus-based process. The Internet Society has long been a part
of the IETF's standards process, and this document does not affect
the ISOC-IETF working relationship concerning standards development
or communication of technical advice. The purpose of this memo is to
define an administrative support activity that is responsive to the
IETF technical community's needs, as well as consistent with ISOC's
operational, financial and fiduciary requirements while supporting
the IETF technical activity.
The IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) provides
administrative support for the technical work of the IETF. This
includes, as appropriate, undertaking or contracting for the work
described in (currently, [RFC3716] but the eventual BCP should
include the detail as an appendix), covering IETF document and data
management, IETF meetings, any operational agreements or contracts
with the RFC Editor and IANA. This provides the administrative
backdrop required to support the IETF standards process and to
support the IETF organized technical activities, including the IESG,
IAB and working groups. This includes the financial activities
associated with such IETF support (collecting IETF meeting fees,
payment of invoices, appropriate financial management, etc). The
IASA is responsible for ensuring that the IETF's administrative
activities are done and done well; it is not the expectation that the
IASA will undertake the work directly, but rather contract the work
from others, and manage the contractual relationships in line with
key operating principles such as efficiency, transparency and cost
effectiveness.
The IASA is distinct from other IETF-related technical functions,
such as the RFC editor, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
(IANA), and the IETF standards process itself. The IASA is not
Daigle & Wasserman [Page 4]
AdminRest Scenario O September 2004
intended to have any influence on the technical decisions of the IETF
or on the technical contents of IETF work.
2.1.1 Structure of the IASA
The IASA will be structured to allow accountability to the IETF
community. It will determine the ongoing success of the activity in
meeting IETF community needs laid out in this BCP, as well as ISOC
oversight of its financial and resource contributions. The
supervisory body defined for this will be called the IETF
Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC). The IAOC will consist of
volunteers, all chosen directly or indirectly by the IETF community,
as well as appropriate ex officio appointments from ISOC and IETF
leadership. The IAOC will be accountable to the IETF community for
the effectiveness, efficiency and transparency of the IASA.
The IASA will initially consist of a single full-time employee of
ISOC, the IETF Administrative Director (IAD). The IAD will require a
variety of financial, legal and administrative support, and it is
expected that this support will be provided by ISOC support staff
following an expense and/or allocation model TBD.
Although the IAD will be a full-time ISOC employee, he will work
under the direction of the IAOC. The IAD will be selected by a
committee of the IAOC, consisting minimally of the ISOC President and
the IETF Chair. This same committee will be responsible for
periodically reviewing the performance of the IAD and determining any
changes to his employment and compensation. In certain cases (to be
defined clearly -- chiefly cases where the ISOC employee is
determined to have contravened basic ISOC policies), the ISOC
President may make summary decisions, to be reviewed by the hiring
committee after the fact.
The IAD will be responsible for administering the IETF finances,
managing a separate bank account for the IASA, and establishing and
administering the IASA budget. To perform these activities, the IAD
is expected to have signing authority comparable to other ISOC
director-level employees. Generally, expenses or agreements outside
that authority to be approved for financial soundness as determined
by ISOC policy. The joint expectation is that ISOC's policies will
be consistent with allowing the IAD to carry out IASA work
effectively and efficiently. Should the IAOC have concerns about
that, the IAOC and ISOC commit to working out other policies that are
mutually agreeable.
The IAD will also fill the role of the IETF Executive Director, as
described in various IETF process BCPs. All other administrative
functions will be outsourced via well-defined contracts. The IAD
Daigle & Wasserman [Page 5]
AdminRest Scenario O September 2004
will be responsible for negotiating and maintaining those contracts,
as well as providing any coordination that is necessary to make sure
the IETF administrative support functions are properly covered.
2.1.2 IAD Responsibilities
The day to day responsibilities of the IAD will focus on managing
contracts with the entities providing the work supporting the IETF
technical activity.
The IAD will provide regular (monthly and quarterly) reports to the
IAOC and ISOC.
All contracts will be negotiated by the IAD (with input from any
other appropriate bodies), and reviewed by the IAOC. The contracts
will be executed by ISOC, on behalf of the IETF, after whatever
review ISOC requires (e.g., legal, Board of Trustees).
The IAD will prepare an annual budget, which will be reviewed and
approved by the IAOC. The IAD will be responsible for presenting
this budget to the ISOC Board of Trustees, as part of ISOC's annual
financial planning process. The partnering is such that the IAOC is
responsible for ensuring the suitability of the budget for meeting
the IETF community's needs, but it does not bear fiduciary
responsibility; the ISOC board needs to review and understand the
budget and planned activity in have enough detail of the budget and
proposed plans to properly carry out its fiduciary responsibility.
2.1.3 IAOC Responsibilities
The role of the IAOC is to provide appropriate input to the IAD, and
oversight of the IASA functioning. The IAOC is not expected to be
regularly engaged in IASA work, but rather to provide appropriate
approval and oversight.
Therefore, the IAOC's responsibilities are:
o Select the IAD, as described above.
o Review the IAD's financial reports, and provide approval of the
IAD's budget proposals in terms of fitness for IETF purposes.
o Review IASA functioning with respect to meeting the IETF
community's working needs.
The IAOC's role is to review, not carry out the work of, the IAD and
IASA. As such, it is expected the IAOC will have monthly
teleconferences and periodic face to face meetings, probably
Daigle & Wasserman [Page 6]
AdminRest Scenario O September 2004
coincident with IETF plenary meetings, consistent with ensuring an
efficient and effective operation.
2.1.4 IASA Funding
The IASA is supported financially in 3 ways:
1. IETF meeting revenues. The IAD, in consultation with the IAOC,
sets the meeting fees as part of the budgeting process. All
meeting revenues go to the IASA.
2. Designated ISOC donations. The IETF and IASA do no specific fund
raising activities; this maintains separation between fundraising
and standards activities. Any organization interested in
supporting the IETF activity will continue to be directed to
ISOC, and any funds ISOC receives specifically for IETF
activities (as part of an ISOC program that allows for specific
designation) will be put in the IASA bank account for IASA
management.
3. Other ISOC support. ISOC will deposit in the IASA account, each
quarter, the funds committed to providing as part of the IASA
budget (where the meeting revenues and specific donations do not
cover the budget). These funds may come from member fees or from
other revenue streams ISOC may create.
Note that the goal is to achieve and maintain a viable IETF support
function based on meeting fees and specified donations, and the IAOC
and ISOC are expected to work together to attain that goal. (I.e.,
dropping the meeting fees to $0 and expecting ISOC to pick up the
slack is not desirable; nor is raising the meeting fees to
prohibitive levels to fund all non-meeting-related activities!).
Also, in normal operating circumstances, the IASA would look to have
a 6 month operating reserve for its activities. Rather than having
the IASA attempt to accrue that in its bank account, the IASA looks
to ISOC to build and provide that operational reserve (through
whatever mechanism instrument ISOC deems appropriate -- line of
credit, financial reserves, etc). Such reserves do not appear
instantaneously; the goal is to reach that level of reserve by 3
years after the creation of the IASA. It is not expected that any
funds associated with such reserve will be held in the IASA bank
account.
2.2 IAOC Membership, Selection and Accountability
Note: This section is particularly subject to change as we work to
find the best way to achieve the key principles. The key principles
Daigle & Wasserman [Page 7]
AdminRest Scenario O September 2004
being adhered to are that while this should be reasonably separate
from IETF Standards process management:
o the IETF and IAB Chairs need to be involved to a level that
permits them to be involved in and oversee the aspects pertinent
to their roles in managing the technical work (e.g., the IAB looks
after the RFC Editor relationship)
o the IETF and IAB Chairs must not be critical path to getting
decisions to and through the IASA.
The current draft, below, therefore makes the IETF Chair ex officio
voting member of the IAOC, and the IAB Chair a non-voting liaison.
Future versions may change either or both, depending on what makes
sense to the IETF community in its deliberations.
The IAOC will consist of seven voting members who will be selected as
follows:
o 2 members chosen by the IETF Nominations Committee (NomCom)
o 1 member chosen by the IESG
o 1 member chosen by the IAB
o 1 member chosen by the ISOC Board of Trustees
o The IETF Chair (ex officio)
o The ISOC President/CEO (ex officio)
There will also be two non-voting, ex officio liaisons:
o The IAB Chair
o The IETF Administrative Director
The voting members of the IAOC will choose their own chair each year
using a consensus mechanism of its choosing. Any appointed voting
member of the IAOC may serve as the IAOC Chair (i.e., not the IETF
Chair or the ISOC President/CEO). The role of the IAOC Chair is to
organize the IAOC. The IAOC Chair has no formal duties for
representing the IAOC, except as directed by IAOC consensus.
The members of the IAOC will typically serve two year terms.
Initially, the IESG and ISOC Board will make one-year appointments,
the IAB will make a two-year appointment, and the Nomcom will make
one one-year appointment and one two-year appointment to establish a
Daigle & Wasserman [Page 8]
AdminRest Scenario O September 2004
pattern where approximately half of the IAOC is selected each term.
The two NomCom selected members will be selected using the procedures
described in RFC 3777. For the initial selection, the IESG will
provide the list of desired qualifications for these positions. In
later years, this list will be provided by the IAOC.
While there are no hard rules regarding how the IAB and the IESG
should select members of the IAOC, it is not expected that they will
typically choose current IAB or IESG members, if only to avoid
overloading existing leadership. However, they should choose people
who are familiar with the administrative support needs of the IAB,
the IESG and/or the IETF standards process. It is suggested that a
fairly open process be followed for these selections, perhaps with an
open call for nominations and/or a period of public comment on the
candidates. The IAB and IESG are encouraged to look at the procedure
for IAB selection of ISOC Trustees for an example of how this might
work.
Although the IAB and IESG will choose some members of the IAOC, those
members will not directly represent the bodies that chose them. All
members of the IAOC are accountable directly to the IETF community.
To receive direct feedback from the community, the IAOC will hold an
open meeting at least once per year at an IETF meeting. This may
take the form of an open IAOC plenary or a working meeting held
during an IETF meeting slot. The form and contents of this meeting
are left to the discretion of the IAOC Chair.
Decisions of IAOC members or the entire IAOC are subject to appeal
using the procedures described in RFC 2026. The initial appeal of an
individual decision will go to the full IAOC. Appeals of IAOC
decisions will go to the IESG and continue up the chain as necessary
(to the IAB and the ISOC Board). The IAOC will play no role (aside
from possible administrative support) in appeals of WG Chair, IESG or
IAB decisions.
In the event that an IAOC member abrogates his duties or acts against
the bests interests of the IETF community, IAOC members are subject
to recall using the recall procedure defined in RFC 3777. IAB and
IESG-appointed members of the IAOC are not subject to recall by their
appointing bodies.
2.3 IASA Budget Process
While the IASA sets a budget for the IETF's administrative needs, its
budget process clearly needs to be closely coordinated with ISOC's.
The specific timeline will be established each year, before the
second IETF meeting. A general annual timeline for budgeting will
Daigle & Wasserman [Page 9]
AdminRest Scenario O September 2004
be:
July 1 The IAD presents a budget proposal (for the following fiscal
year, with 3 year projections) to the IAOC.
August 1 The IAOC approves the budget proposal for IETF purposes,
after any appropriate revisions. As the ISOC President is part of
the IAOC, the IAOC should have a preliminary indication of how the
budget will fit with ISOC's own budgetary expectations. The
budget proposal is passed to the ISOC Board of Trustees for review
in accordance with their fiduciary duty.
September 1 The ISOC Board of Trustees approves the budget proposal
provisionally. During the next 2 months, the budget may be
revised to be integrated in ISOC's overall budgeting process.
November 1 Final budget to the ISOC Board for approval.
The IAD will provide monthly accountings of expenses, and will update
forecasts of expenditures quarterly. This may necessitate the
adjustment of the IASA budget. The revised budget will need to be
approved by the IAOC and ISOC Board of Trustees.
2.4 Relationship of the IAOC to Existing IETF Leadership
The IAOC will be directly accountable to the IETF Community.
However, the nature of the IAOC's work will involve treating the IESG
and IAB as internal customers. The IAOC should not consider its work
successful unless the IESG and IAB are satisfied with the
administrative support that they are receiving.
2.5 ISOC Responsibilities for IASA
Within ISOC, support for the IASA should be structured to meet the
following goals:
Transparency: The IETF community should have complete visibility into
the financial and legal structure of the ISOC standards activity.
In particular, the IETF community should have access to a detailed
budget for the entire standards activity, quarterly financial
reports and audited annual financials. In addition, key contract
material and MOUs should be publicly available. Most of these
goals are already met by ISOC today. The IAOC will be responsible
for providing the IETF community with regular overviews of the
state of affairs.
Daigle & Wasserman [Page 10]
AdminRest Scenario O September 2004
Unification: As part of this arrangement, ISOC's sponsorship of the
RFC Editor, IAB and IESG, as well as insurance coverage for the
IETF will be managed as part of the IASA under the IAOC.
Independence: The IASA should be financially and legally distinct
from other ISOC activities. IETF meeting fees should be deposited
in a separate IETF-specific bank account and used to fund the IASA
under the direction and oversight of the IAOC. Any fees or
payments collected from IETF meeting sponsors should also be
deposited into this account. This account will be administered by
the IAD and used to fund the IASA in accordance with a budget and
policies that are developed as described above.
Support: ISOC may, from time to time, choose to transfer other funds
into this account to fund IETF administrative projects or to cover
IETF meeting revenue shortfalls. There may also be cases where
ISOC chooses to loan money to the IASA to help with temporary cash
flow issues. These cases should be carefully documented and
tracked on both sides. ISOC will work to provide the 6 month
operational reserve for IASA functioning described above.
Removability: While there is no current plan to transfer the legal
and financial home of the IASA to another corporation, the IASA
should be structured to enable a clean transition in the event
that the IETF community decides, through BCP publication, that
such a transition is required. In that case, the IAOC will give
ISOC a minimum six months notice before the transition formally
occurs. During that period, the IAOC and ISOC will work together
to create a smooth transition that does not result in any
significant service outages or missed IETF meetings. All
contracts that are executed by ISOC as part of the IASA should
either include a clause allowing termination or transfer by ISOC
with six months notice, or should be transferrable to another
corporation in the event that the IASA is transitioned away from
ISOC in the future. Any accrued funds, and IETF-specific
intellectual property rights (concerning administrative data and/
or tools) would also be expected to be transitioned to any new
entity, as well.
Within the constraints outlined above, all other details of how to
structure this activity within ISOC (as a cost center, a department
or a formal subsidiary) should be determined by ISOC in consultation
with the IAOC.
3. Workplan for Formalizing the IETF Administrative Support Activity
This section proposes a workplan and schedule for formalizing the
IETF administrative support activity (IASA) for the remainder of 2004
Daigle & Wasserman [Page 11]
AdminRest Scenario O September 2004
and 2005.
3.1 Workplan Goals
This workplan is intended to satisfy four goals:
o Satisfy the IETF's need for support functions through 2005, with a
careful transition that minimizes the risk of substantial
disruption to the IETF standards process.
o Establish IETF community consensus and ISOC approval of a BCP
formalizing the IASA as described in this scenario before any
actions are taken that will have long term effects (hiring,
contacts, etc.)
o Make sure that decisions with long term impact, such as hiring the
IAD and establishing contracts for administrative support, are
made by people chosen for that purpose who will be responsible to
the community for the effectiveness of this effort (the IAD and
members of the IAOC) -- not by our already overloaded technical
leadership.
o Within the above constraints, move as quickly as possible towards
a well-defined administrative support structure that is
transparent and accountable to the IETF community.
3.2 Workplan Overview
There are three major elements to this workplan which can, to some
degree, take place in parallel after we establish IETF community
consensus to pursue Scenario O:
o Finalizing the BCP text and getting it approved by the IETF
community and ISOC.
o Selecting IASA leadership. This includes appointing an interim
IAOC, recruiting the IAD, and eventually appointing the full IAOC.
o Negotiating agreements with service providers. This includes
determining the structure and work flow of the IASA, deciding
which portions of the IASA should be staffed via an open request
for proposals (RFP) process, and issuing a RFP for those portions,
as well as establishing sole source contracts or MOUs for other
portions of the IASA.
Each of the three items listed above is described in more detail in
the following sections.
Daigle & Wasserman [Page 12]
AdminRest Scenario O September 2004
3.3 Approval by the IETF Community and ISOC
In scenario O, the IASA is formalized in a BCP that is approved by
the IETF community and accepted by the ISOC Board of Trustees. There
are three steps in this process:
1. Establishment of IETF community consensus that we should pursue
Scenario O as defined in a joint IAB/IESG recommendation based on
this proposal. This consensus will be established through
community discussion and a formal two-week consensus call issued
by the IETF chair on the IETF mailing list.
2. Establishment of IETF community consensus on a BCP that
formalizes the IASA as described. This consensus would be
established through public discussion, a four week IETF Last Call
and IESG review and approval.
3. ISOC approval of the BCP and acceptance of ISOC's
responsibilities as described therein. This approval and
acceptance would be signified by an ISOC Board resolution.
The timeline for these three stages is rather long, but there is
significant progress that can be made in other areas once we have
established IETF community consensus to pursue this scenario.
3.4 Selecting IASA Leadership
Once we have IETF consensus to pursue this scenario, we can appoint
an interim IAOC to begin working on the IASA transition. The interim
IAOC could do substantial work on non-binding tasks, such as
beginning the recruitment process for an IAD, determining the
structure of the IASA work, issuing RFPs and negotiating potential
agreements with service providers. The interim IAOC would not be
empowered to make binding agreements, but could work appropriate
consultants and advisors to make a lot of progress towards
determining the initial structure and work flow of the IASA.
Because the IETF Nominations Commitee (NomCom) process for new
positions will consume a lot of resources and take a long time to
complete, we propose that the interim IAOC consist of:
o 1 IESG selected member
o 1 IAB selected member
o 1 ISOC selected member
o The IETF Chair
Daigle & Wasserman [Page 13]
AdminRest Scenario O September 2004
o The ISOC President/CEO
The IAB chair will serve as a liaison, as described above.
The IESG and ISOC Board appointments will be expected to serve until
the first IETF meeting of 2006, and the IAB appointment will be
expected to serve until the first IETF meeting of 2007, assuming that
the BCP is approved and the IAOC continues to have appointed members
from these bodies.
After all of the interim IAOC members are selected, they will choose
an interim IAOC chair from among the appointed members.
When the BCP is approved, if the BCP indicates that there will be
NomCom selected IAOC members they will be chosen at that time. Any
adjustments to appointed members based on the BCP contents will also
be made at that time. The IAOC will transition from interim to
non-interim status when all non-interim members are seated. A new,
non-interim chair selection process will then commence.
3.5 Recruiting the IETF Administrative Director
The interim IAOC should appoint an IAD selection committee to recruit
and select the IETF Administrative Director. This committee will
consist entirely of IAOC members or liaisons, and will, at minimum,
include the IETF chair and the ISOC President. If the IAOC chooses,
this committee could include the entire IAOC.
The IAD selection committee should determine a job description for
the IAD, in consultation with other IETF leaders and the IETF
community. Once the job description is established, the IAD
selection committee should recruiting candidates for the position.
Although the interim IAOC is not empowered to hire the IAD as a
full-time employee, it might be possible for the IAOC to ask ISOC to
engage the potential IAD as a consultant to help with other tasks
during the interim period.
3.6 Establishing Agreement with Service Providers
The most important activity of the IAOC during late 2004 and early
2005 will be to determine the structure and work flow of the IASA and
to establish contracts or other agreements with service providers to
do the required work. This work includes the following functions as
defined in the consultant's report:
o Technical infrastructure
Daigle & Wasserman [Page 14]
AdminRest Scenario O September 2004
o Meeting management
o Clerk's office
o RFC Editor services to support IETF standards publication
o IANA services to support IETF standards publication
The interim IAOC should work with IETF leaders and other
knowledgeable members of the community to determine the structure and
work flow required for the IASA activity and make corresponding
adjustments to the above list, if necessary. The interim IAOC can
also identify which areas of IASA work should continue to be provided
by existing IETF service providers, and work with those providers to
establish proposed contracts or agreements for later approval by the
non-interim IAOC. The IAOC can also choose to start an RFP process
for any services that they believe should be filled through an open
RFP process.
3.7 Establishing a 2005 Operating Budget
Because the ISOC 2005 budgeting process will be finalized before the
non-interim IAOC is seated, the interim IAOC should work with the
ISOC staff and President to establish a proposed 2005 operating
budget for the IASA. Since this will happen in advance of full
knowledge regarding the costs of 2005 operations, it may be subject
to significant adjustment later.
3.8 Proposed Schedule for IASA Transition
As described above, the three stages of the IETF community and ISOC
approval process will take some time. If the community chooses
scenario O and we reach quick consensus on the details, an optimistic
schedule for this approval would be:
1. IETF discussion of this proposal and other scenarios through
1-Oct-2005. IAB/IESG discusses this proposal with ISOC Board.
2. IAB/IESG joint recommendation issued on 8-Oct-04, including full
BCP proposal.
3. Community discussion of the joint IAB/IESG recommendation through
22-Oct-04.
4. Two-week community consensus call issued on the IETF list on
23-Oct-04 regarding rough community consensus to pursue this
direction and appoint an interim IAOC -- extends through IETF
61. IAOC selecting bodies begin search, based on expected
Daigle & Wasserman [Page 15]
AdminRest Scenario O September 2004
community consensus.
5. Rough community consensus declared on 8-Nov-04 to pursue Scenario
O and appoint the interim IAOC.
6. Interim IAOC seated on 15-Nov-04. Interim IAOC begins interim
work outlined above, including establishment of estimated 2005
budget and IAD recruitment.
7. BCP text discussed by community, IETF leadership and ISOC Board
until we have something that represents rough community
consensus that is acceptable to all. We hope that this could be
completed by 6-Dec-04.
8. Four week IETF Last Call issued for BCP on 6-Dec-04 -- extends
through 3-Jan-04.
9. Simultaneous IESG and ISOC Board approvals by 17-Jan-04.
10. IAD officially hired in Jan 2005.
11. NomCom seats IAOC members at the first IETF of 2005, moving the
IAOC from interim to non-interim status.
12. Formal agreements with all service providers in-place by June
2005.
4. Security Considerations
This document describes a scenario for the structure of the IETF's
administrative support activities. It introduces no security
considerations for the Internet.
5. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA considerations in the traditional sense.
As part of the extended IETF family, though, IANA may be interested
in the contents.
6. Acknowledgements
Most of the ideas in this document are not new, and many of them did
not originate with the authors. This scenario represents a
combination of ideas discussed within the IAB, the IESG and the IETF
Community.
This document was written using the xml2rfc tool described in RFC
Daigle & Wasserman [Page 16]
AdminRest Scenario O September 2004
2629 [RFC2629].
7. References
7.1 Normative References
[I-D.malamud-consultant-report]
Malamud, C., "IETF Administrative Support Functions",
draft-malamud-consultant-report-01 (work in progress),
September 2004.
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC3716] Advisory, IAB., "The IETF in the Large: Administration and
Execution", RFC 3716, March 2004.
7.2 Informative References
[RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
June 1999.
[RFC3667] Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78, RFC
3667, February 2004.
[RFC3668] Bradner, S., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3668, February 2004.
Authors' Addresses
Leslie Daigle
VeriSign
EMail: leslie(_at_)verisignlabs(_dot_)com, leslie(_at_)thinkingcat(_dot_)com
Margaret Wasserman
ThingMagic
One Broadway, 14th Floor
Cambridge, MA 02142
USA
Phone: +1 617 758-4177
EMail: margaret(_at_)thingmagic(_dot_)com
URI: http://www.thingmagic.com
Daigle & Wasserman [Page 17]
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"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