Hi,
Below you'll find all comments received to the poll about restructuring
options. To make sense of the comments, each comment is prefaced with
the pollee's response to the preference question, if any. If you would
like this presented in a different manner, let me know.
Henrik
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario O
It's a tough world out there - take advantage of what we've already got_
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario O
I beieve that the case has not been made for separating from ISOC, and
that ISOC has been a reliable partner in the past. There are of course
issues that need to be addressed, but I believe that ISOC is interested
in addressing them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario O
I think it would be easier to get running, and easier to fine tune once
it is running. Also, scenario C could still be implemented if it is
determined down the road that that is desired. --R. Uyeshiro
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario O
Scenario O seems more evolutionary; Scenario C more revolutionary. If
Scenario O proves not to work, Scenario C can be revisited at a later
date. The reverse would likely be much more difficult.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario O
Neither of these is ideal, the second seems slightly less arms length
for participation from working community members. ? Is "Secretariat to
Administrative Support Activity (IASA)" as "secretary is to
administravtive assistant" ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not comfortable with either "O" or "C"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario O
I believe it is more efficient to begin with scenario O (an activity
within ISOC). If for some clear reason this does not appear to be
working and cannot be amended within the O framework, then it would be
appropriate to re-examine scenario C. I think there is a great deal of
overhead and duplication embedded in the C scenario and I do not
understand the necessity for this to be the first choice. Vint Cerf
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario O
I'm persuaded that the scenario retaining the most of the current
situation's characteristics is the best of the alternatives currently
proposed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario O
This is a hard question. I've been through creating entities before, so
I'd say people underestimate the work needed for C. We can still do C if
O fails, and most of the work on O will be reusable then.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario O
I have not read the September 20 postings for scenarios C and O. My
vote, not that well informed, is based upon the e-mail on the IETF list.
I tend to be conservative regarding structural change, by the way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario O
If members of the leadership of the IETF and the IAB don't understand
the usefulness of a being part of the Internet Society and feel
compelled to "go it alone," then they aren't smart enough to be in the
leadership. Why create a complex new organization and throw away the
leverage and support that being part of the ISOC provides? As the
geopolitics of Internet standards gets more and more contentious and
high-stakes, why make it easier for those who would like to undermine
the IETF's openness and insert more government control? I fully
understand and support the need to formalize the IETF management and
structure, but believe it should be done within the context of the
Internet Society. I actually wish Scenario O did more to enable the IETF
to leverage the contacts, membership, and mindshare of ISOC. We should
learn from how the IEEE standards process leverages the education,
publications, membership services, and policy programs provided by the
rest of the IEEE (for instance).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario O
Scott Bradner
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario O
Scenario O clarifies the relationships between the IETF and ISOC without
creating a whole new legal and organizational structure. It takes
advantage of and honors the existing relationship between the two
organizations and it doesn't foreclose other re-arrangements. Ed
Levinson
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario O
I trust the judgment of the IETF leaders who support Scenario O.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario O
Joseph/Jay Moran - IETF(_at_)tp(_dot_)org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario C
I have mixed feelings. Scenario O seems to be the more cost-efficient of
the two, and I am generally comfortable with having a closer
relationship with ISOC. However given recent abuses on the part of the
US government and my general uncertainty about the willingness of the US
government to honor its own constitutional protections for civil
liberties, I also have a strong preference for insulating IETF
activities from US law as much as is practical. So my overall preference
is for Scenario C _provided_ that the administrative support
organization is incorporated in the Netherlands or perhaps Switzerland.
But if this turns out to be impractical, it might make more sense to go
with Scenario O. I see little advantage in Scenario C if the
organization is incorporated in the United States.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario O
I agree with Scott: no sufficient justification has been put forward for
scenario C. Bert has come reasonably close and his messages have helped
me sort of understand why someone might want a corporation. However I
disagree with his assumptions. --Sam Hartman
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario O
The motivation for choosing scenario C seems to be flexibility for the
future, but at the cost of many distractions and administrative
requirements and perhaps monetary costs. The benefits don't seem to help
us much for perhaps many years, and after all things might be much
different by that time. I'd prefer an incremental approach in this
matter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't have a strong preference for either scenarios. Scenario C may be
more future proof, but is more risky. I'm not a reorg guru, so I
probably defer stating my opininion. John Loughney
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario O
I believe Scenario O presents less risk in the short run and allows IETF
move speedier through the transition. IETF has spent quite a bit of time
in this process and will still spend some time more implementing the
outcome. I believe the process will be much longer on Scenario C.
Though, speediness is wished, the details of Scerio O still have to be
worked. I would be surprised if the given deadlines would be met.
Cheers, Jonne Soininen. jonne(_dot_)soininen(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an area where typical IETFers are not well informed (even those
who pretend to be). This discussion is just as ill-informed as was the
discussion on how to run an IETF meeting, whether we should serve
cookies, etc. Another area where IETF geeks have little experience or
value to add. A competent consultant would be more appropriate to
address the issue.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario O
If there had been an option to go to 'C' via 'O', I would have chosen
that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario O
I have just a few comments. I´d like to point to the fact that it is
often so that when a choice has been made to conduct or organize things
in a certain way, changing that way is difficult and it requires
additional resources. Perhaps more time to review is needed before
making definitive choices. I think Scenario O is good for now, as it is
the choice of continuity. However, in recognizing that generalized and
stable support functions, as those which are needed, are better placed
separately to the supported organizational entities, as to avoid
cross-over and ensure stability, a functional organization of work, as
described in Scenario C, is the long term preferred choice. However, in
my view Scenario C is not acceptable in its current form; time is needed
to develop it to represent the current state and the intension of the
IETF and the TAO. That said, I need to point to some concerns mentioned
in Scenario C, Appendix B _ C. If the IEFT (and the ISOC) is to be
perceived as "international" or global, and also reflect this in its
constitution, choices must be made to also show this in its structure.
This *could* be done by choosing to place the domicile of the IEFT
Administrative Support Foundation on non-US soil, for example, as
suggested in Scenario C, in Switzerland or The Netherlands (the
governance of the Internet as a whole is heavily US-centric). Following
this, incorporating in either of those countries seems rather obvious.
Doing this would also completely eliminate the serious risks mentioned
in Appendix C.1 as well as communicating structurally the
international/global constitution of the IETF. Any comments? Peter Falk
Larsen colombo(_at_)imv(_dot_)au(_dot_)dk Dep. of Information Studies,
University of
Aarhus, Denmark.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As publicly stated: To make an informed deciscion I would have to
understand to much detail. Although on first sight scenario O gives warm
fuzzies making a choice would be like tossing a coin instead of a
formulating an informed opinion. I wish to state an informed opinion, I
can't currently. --Olaf Kolkman
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario O
I view Scenario C as overly complex and risky. For instance, one cannot
assume the newly formed corporation will actually achieve non-profit
status in a timely manner (if at all). I view Scenario O as an natural
evolution of our existing operation model. We are today "an organized
activity of the ISOC". Scenario O simply shifts certain activities from
a service provider (CNRI/Foretec) to the ISOC. I am far more willing to
trust ISOC (based upon past operational experience) than some new entity
(which I have no operational experience with).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario O
C would actually be easier _after_ completing O. I may get around to
explaining why even O is heavier than necessary...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario O
Wasn't ISOCs primary original reason for instantiation to serve exactly
this IASA function - to give the IETF a legal form?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario O
Leave the business to the professionals. Let us get on with what we do
best and not clutter our gatherings with administrivia. If option O does
not serve the community interest, we can always break from ISOC at a
later date.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario O
I perfer scenario O. I just send a note to the IETF list explaining my
thinking. Bob Hinden _bob(_dot_)hinden(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com_
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario C
My best guess, right now, is that having the IETF's administrative
support functions as separate as possible from the more complex (and
considerably more important) policy and education missions of ISOC would
be a good thing for accomplishing the administrative support functions.
- Sally Floyd
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario O
As indicated in a long note to the IETF list, I really appreciate the
idea and effort behind this. But I don't think it solves the underlying
problem of getting thoughful and educated opinions. To do that, it is
vital to open the process up more and do some serious educating and
parsing of the issues. I've tried to do that, but the scenarios don't.
And please do not construe these sorts of binary answers as
authorization. --John Klensin (who else? :-(
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMO most IETF-type technical people don't have the knowledge to comment
usefully on this administrative aspect. Even the grey-beards who comment
so extensively may not really have well-informed opinions, but I
wouldn't know for sure. This whole discussion is very disappointing
because after all this time spent on IETF restructure we don't seem to
be addressing the right problems: - the IETF takes *far* too long to
produce standards/RFCs, **years**, and it's getting worse - the IETF has
fallen far behind other SDOs in the speed of producing standards (e.g.,
the ITU now gets standards finished in a matter of months) - the IETF
should be willing to examine improvements in standards production made
by other SDOs (e.g., ITU) to see if these are useful to the IETF (I
know, heresy) - the IESG is very competent IMO, but woofully overloaded,
with the huge bottleneck of ever-increasing amount of work - too often
ADs and WG chairs do not provide sufficient initiative; it is not
uncommon for ADs and/or WG chairs to ignore emails, or take months to
reply
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I lean slightly towards Scenario O, but not enough to state it as an
actual preference.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario O
The IETF should summarise the issues. If 1_ of the effort put into list
discussion had made a summary....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The discussion is too much troubled by non-related things. This
secretariat stuff is just an administrative function. I feel the
discussion is hampered by opinions from (amateur) lawyers about american
laws. These fine subtilaties are taken way to much time and ask too much
knowledge about americam law then I have time to catch up with. I don't
really see a need do the restructuring as "micro management by
consensus". Other fundamental questions, such as, "is the nom com still
a good model?" should be discussed seperated if the need for that is
felt.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario O
Kai Henningsen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario C
While scenario O may be easier to implement in the short term due to the
tighter linkage with ISOC, I feel that scenario C provides a better
long-term future for the IETF. There is more risk with scenario C
without the funding described in scenario O, but reliable ISOC funding
has a dependency on ISOC being funded by PIR and .org revenues. If ISOC
ever loses .org the funding situation could become quite murky.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scenario O may be preferable to Scenario C, but it is not sufficiently
formed yet to enable a full decision.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario O
Hubert(_dot_)Martens(_at_)MultiNET(_dot_)DE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario O
For the short term and as a stepping stone to evolving into a more
autonomous entity I would go with Scenario O. As the management skill
set of the committee is built up (with regards to the special
requirements of the ietf) then they may consider moving towards the
Scenario C model. Darryl (Dassa) Lynch
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario O
Scenario O provides better alignment with ISOC by not creating a
separate legal entity. Scenario C has many loose ends, e.g. a
corporation without members and stockholders...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario C
The effort to organize the IETF as a separate entity have been grossly
exaggerated. I've always been of the opinion that the IETF should be
separate and have never accepted that most IETF members ever approved
become merely a "part" of ISOC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe the IAB and the IESG are properly answerable to the community
and hence I am happy with a "representative democracy" process for
deciding how the administrative functions ought to be
legally/business/operationally organized. "Participatory direct
democracy" does not seem a necessary process here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario O
My opinion is weak, based on my perception from list discussion that
scenario O offers fewer opportunities to go completely wrong than
scenario C. It is also predicated on the supposition that ISOC would
actively support option O. Generally, I believe the IAB/IESG and others
are better infortmed in this respect than I. [GK at ACM.ORG]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario O
it's the best step forward
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario C
I think that all of the administrative structures, as described,
represent more change than is needed, if the ultimate goal is to obtain
contracted administrative services which are an improvement over
existing services.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario O
The ISOC was created because IETF needed a more explicit organization
for purposes of providing liability insurance and obtaining support.
Let's use it. p.s. How will ballot-stuffing be precluded in this poll?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario C
with special attention to the part about "mainly selected by and
accountable to the IETF community " which I understand to mean anyone
who is willing to read the 20-to-50 messages everyday and take a view
therefrom ... this is the point where ICANN lost focus, when they threw
all the real users into the trash in favor of the large contributors ...
... thanks for your attention, with shared hope for a good outcome ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario O
It is very difficult to start a new corporation. IETF under scenario C
will be putting itself in a difficult situation with the inability to
get lines of credit, sign hotel contracts without a huge deposit, etc.
Going with an established entity will provide the business "experience"
that is required by all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am following the debate, but don't feel qualified to pick between the
two options. (Actually, I don't feel that some of the people speaking on
the IETF list are qualified either.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario O
Tony Hain - substantive comments already on the list
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario O
"Scenario O" is preferable to me through its simplicity - only one
relationship between the IETF and ISOC and not the need for separate
relationships between the IETF, ISOC and IASF as proposed in "Scenario
C". Such a simpler relationship will in all likelyhood lead to reduced
overhead and management of relationships, simpler management and
overhead (accounts, funding, meeting planning and management etc)
through leveraging the existing and common capabilities within the ISOC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario O
I like the general idea of staying under the Isoc umbrella better, it
seems less hazardous. I do not care much about the details and somehow
trust the leadership to deal with them. I'm not an expert... Alain
Durand.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer neither.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario C
C seems like a more long term solution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario O
I think that Scenario O is considerably easier to implement in the near
future. In addition, I believe that IETF's ISOC Board representation
provides the IETF community with considerable influence within the ISOC.
Bernard Aboba
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario O
The ISOC was originally created to provide a legal umbrella for the IETF
- specifically, liability coverage. I see no reasons to create more
legal entities (along with the extra overhead) when the ISOC is already
here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario O
I'm convinced by the arguments made that stronger affiliation with ISOC
is in the best interest of the IETF ..if and only if it can be
demonstrated that the ISOC board will not permit expenditures for ISOC
conferences without real business plans and revenue projections and it
is clear that both ISOC and IETF will have to publish to the community
appropriate and audited financial statements on a yearly basis. Richard
Shockey
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario O
Scenario C is unnecessary and very risky for the IETF. Our original goal
was to get things into one place that was under IETF direction. Scenario
C goes way beyond this, and is too big a leap in any event since we're
not skilled at this sort of organization - nor at 100_ standalone
financial responsibility. Scenario O is the right solution and is more
than sufficient. It can be done quickly, and has zero or little adoption
risk. It's a good move for now, and it can be modified later if any need
presents itself (I don't see any need, but at least it's flexible if and
when our requirements change). An important note on the polling ballot
above: you list scenario O and C in order twice and then all of a
sudden, in the middle of the second question, the order is reversed.
This is very confusing and prone to error. I actually put in the wrong
answer until I double-checked my work; I think other people will
probably do the same. I think this makes the poll unrealiable. Didn't
anyone check this before you sent it out? This is basic to good
questionnaire design.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario O
Need to verify whether O can be accomplished without causing problems
for ISOC's tax status.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elwyn Davies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer Scenario O
Focus on securing dedicated top level planning and negotiation
capability that can set the administrative agenda and oversee it that is
reflexive to the IETF but without setting a structure in stone or trying
to redesign the whole of the IETF or the whole of the IETF / ISOC
relationship. cdel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both scenarii are similar in the way they use similar wording to address
an undefined problem. Please define the target first as a job
description of the IETF one single person and the difficulties it meet.
Define supporting structure deliverable and the required budget and
where revenues are expected to come. We have enough of one non-profit
with big money (ISOC) and one non-profit non member coporation (ICANN).
The concerns over the domicile, the location, the language, the
contractor is also a REAL one. jfc morfin
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf