Margaret,
Thanks for sharing my Internet-Draft on the IETF administrative processes
with the IETF discussion list. I also appreciated your recognition and kind
words about the role played by CNRI, and Bob Kahn in particular, in
supporting the IETF community. I have since revised my Internet-Draft
somewhat in light of informal suggestions received from various persons, and
added a few words to clarify certain issues you raised in your comments.
The revised version is posted at:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lyons-proposed-changes-statement-01.txt
You mentioned the importance of keeping support services, such as management
of cash flow, separate from IETF technical efforts. I share this concern in
large part. However, I would draw a distinction between carrying out
routine administrative, financial (like accounting for expenses and meeting
fees), technical (such as computer rooms at meetings), legal or other
support services for the IETF ("support services"), and the solicitation,
donation, receipt and other fundraising efforts for IETF purposes
("fundraising").
Apart from the provision of routine IETF support services, fundraising for
the IETF is a potential source of conflict of interest. To minimize the
possibility that a contributor of funds for IETF purposes might be perceived
as having an undue influence on IETF standards setting work, I have proposed
that a new, separately incorporated and independent entity called the IETF
Foundation be established to manage the IETF fundraising activities. While
the IETF Foundation would necessarily need to coordinate with the IETF
leadership on IETF funding needs, the Foundation would not have any
operational role (whether administrative, technical or otherwise) with
respect to the IETF itself. A mission of this new organization would be to
interface directly with funding sources and provide a buffer between such
sources and the IETF.
In any event, the IETF retains the fiduciary obligation to supervise and
control any support services provided to the IETF by third parties,
including any possible new administrative entity that may be established
to serve the IETF community. While supervisory responsibility for certain
support services (whether under contract or simply volunteer) may be
delegated by the IETF to others, the obligation to provide general oversight
for such activities resides ultimately with the IETF leadership, in
particular the IESG. It would not be appropriate for the IETF to give up
this vital oversight responsibility in the interest of administrative
efficiency.
Please let me know if this clarification of my comments meets your concerns.
I look forward to resolving the administrative issues that have been under
discussion recently, but would add a note of caution on a rush to judgment.
The reorganization issues under consideration are of major importance for
the future of the IETF, and the Internet community more generally.
Regards,
Patrice
<palyons(_at_)cox(_dot_)net>
P.S. Since I just subscribed to the IETF discussion list and haven't
received official notification yet, I would appreciate it if you would
again share my comments with the list.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf