RE: Time horizon, contingencies, and destinations (was scenarios 0 and C

Ted Hardie wrote:
> In reading through a number of the recent postings, I am struck with
> the focus each has on different time horizons. 
Time horizon is part of the discrepancy, but 'true independence' is more of
a core issue as far as I can tell. There seems to be a perception that the
IETF can be a completely 'independent' body. The reality is far from that. 

Even *if* the attendance fees cover the operational costs for the IETF
proper, they will never come close to covering the RFC Editor. Following
your thought experiment, if the RFC Editor were to separate from ISOC, where
would that support money come from? If you say charging for documents; that
is the model that is so detested about similar standards publications. If
you say the same funding bodies that provide it today; how would the RFC
Editor maintain its editorial independence? Even if you ignore the fact that
fund raising distracts from the core function of the RFC Editor's office,
there is an extremely valuable, poorly understood buffer that the ISOC
provides to allow the RFC Editor to avoid any undue influence from those
providing the funds. 

To some degree the same issue arises in the IETF administration. There is
very little infrastructure that protects our 'no voting' mantra.
Decentralized funding through attendance fees helps that but is subject to
variability with the need for a guarantee body to back up any losses. At the
same time, if we go down the path of more stable centralized fund-raising by
the scenario C proposed Independent Corporation, there are likely to be some
strong strings (ropes/chains) attached to that funding with the
implicit/explicit intent to influence the outcome of the technical efforts.
Call it a membership organization or not, the outcome of this environment is
that those who are providing the funds will be in a position to demand their
way on technical issues through the threat of pulling the money. 

On the other hand, accepting some degree of 'dependence' on the ISOC is
logically buying a buffer from that threat, allowing the technical
activities to operate as independently as we expect. In any case, lacking an
endowment to cover all costs the IETF and related activities are 'dependent'
on external support. Be that on meeting fees or centralized fund raising,
the activities would completely stop without the funds. Accepting the
reality of 'dependence' is the fundamental starting point. Once that is
done, the next step is finding the appropriate corporate structure that
maintains the integrity of the technical work. To me this is a no-brainer;
scenario O solves both the short and long term issue of a buffer from
funding influence, besides being the lowest risk & cost both short and long
term.

Tony


> Bert's posts indicate
> he wants the reforms we're engaged in now to work for his children;
> others' indicate that they're concerned that near term hurdles in
> the process could damage the IETF beyond salvage or will distract
> the IETF from more critical reform of the standards track.
>
> Both are very valuable points of view, no matter how difficult it
> may seem to reconcile them at the moment.  From my perspective,
> we need to have a vision of the long term for the IETF in mind, as we
> recognize that tactical concerns affect the selection of immediate
> solutions.
>
> For me, an end state in which an IASF can itself be a support to the IETF
> and the Internet community is a good one.  I recognize that means that
> there will need to be a process of growing that organization into that
> role, and that process will likely involving nurturing with funds and
> attention in the short term; in the longer term, I hope that meeting
> fees will help make the IASF self-sufficient or nearly so.
>
> As a thought experiment, imagine that the RFC Editor staff had a
> lottery group with a winning ticket and decided en masse to
> retire.  If ISI decided on some basis not to rebuild that team, the
> IETF would have to look elsewhere for publication of its standards.
> I would expect ISOC, which has funded the RFC Editor for many years,
> to have a strong role in that process.  It might even under some
> circumstances take on a much more direct role, re-using its existing
> resources to keep the function going as the RFC Editor team transitioned
> to their new roles as philanthropists and people of leisure.
>
> I would expect over time, though, that the standards publication function
> would move back out of ISOC into some other independent entity.
> The skills needed to run the RFC Editor are different from the skills
> needed to handle the policy, education, and outreach functions of
> ISOC.  The independence of the RFC Editor's decisions on non-IETF
> documents are also easier to make clear to the community when it
> is an independent entity.  In short, the RFC Editor serves itself as
> an independent support to the IETF and the Internet community, even
> as it is funded by ISOC.
>
> If the current RFC Editor won the lottery, getting back to that state
> with a new standards publication entity would take the time,
> attention, and financial support of ISOC.  But ISOC would
> be incubating that new organization and/or relationship; it
> would not be becoming the RFC Editor.  And I think the same
> view holds here--the Internet community is counting on ISOC
> to help incubate a new relationship (which might even be a new
> relationship with the existing folks doing the work).  But incubating
> that relationship and the IETF support organization that anchors
> it does not mean that the ISOC needs to become that support
> organization.  In the short term, yes, the organization needs
> ISOC's support, time, and attention; in the longer term, the
> community is better off if an IASF can serve as an independent support
> (whether funded by fees, ISOC, or some combination of the two).
>
> If that means that tactically we start out with scenario O and
> consider other changes as they are needed; okay--that may
> be the tactical necessity.  I believe, though, that the strategic
> vision should remain one of independent supporting
> organizations, and that we should reach for that now if we
> believe we can get there.  Multiple transitions will be painful,
> either for us our successors, and saving that pain is a worthwhile
> goal unless we are very sure that the staged transition
> has other benefits.
>
> Just two cents from an IETF participant,
>                               regards,
>                                       Ted Hardie
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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