Harald,
I think this is all to the good. Several specific comments
below.
--On Wednesday, 26 January, 2005 09:29 +0100 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no> wrote:
John,
attempting to take some higher-level process issues first,
before answering questions in detail:
The question Neustar asked the transition team could be
roughly represented as "If we make this deal with CNRI, will
the IETF community think that we tried to help, or be mad at
us for interfering?".
It was obvious to us, as the transition team, that we could
not answer that definitely - we have no power to decide on
behalf of the community. But after listening to what Neustar
had to say, we were able to say:
- We will *share* with the community our opinion that this
effort could help achieve a transition with less conflict and
uncertainty than going straight from a CNRI-provided
secretariat to an open RFP process would.
Can you explain (if you have not already done so in your longer
note) why you think this helps if the issues associated with
CNRI-claimed IPR and agreements with ISOC that prevent lodging
certain IETF administrative and support functions under an ISOC
umbrella remain unresolved? It seems to me that those issues
are the clear loci of potential "conflict and uncertainty". If
this intermediate transition does not address them, is it of
significant help compared with the potential simplicity of a
one-step process?
- We will *recommend* to the to-be-established IASA and IAOC
that if this deal happens, they will negotiate in good faith
with Neustar on a contract for these services.
See my earlier comments, responding to Brian, about the BCP
draft and sole-source, unsolicited, proposals.
I believe both of these actions are entirely within the remit
of the transition team.
Yes. Certainly the transition team can inform the community and
make any recommendations it finds appropriate.
We do have something of a timing problem here - if we want our
IAD to negotiate a contract, we cannot sign a contract before
we have an IAD; we cannot hire the IAD before we have an IASA
to do the hiring; we cannot establish an IASA before we have a
BCP; we cannot approve a BCP before the text stands still.
Yes, and I believe the community understood that issue when
consensus was reached on the transition team not being an
interim IAOC.
But this event is occuring now - Neustar and CNRI are saying
that it would be an advantage in practical terms to have this
deal concluded before the March IETF. It would be very strange
if we were so caught up in the formalities of IASA
establishment that nobody was able to talk to them, look at
what they are offering, and say "this appears to be helpful,
thank you for trying".
Harald, while I am not arguing against this idea -- just
attempting to understand its ramifications, context, and the
problems it does or does not solve --I suggest that the two do
not have anything to do with each other.
In the strange world in which we have been living for the last
several years, and in which we live today, the IETF's
relationship with the secretariat (including mailing list and
meeting planning functions -- see Scott's note) is informal and
with a legal entity called "Foretec". While we might wish it
otherwise, the question of whether Foretec is a subsidiary of
CNRI, of Neustar, of some yet-to-be-created entity, or is
completely independent is not a subject on which the IETF gets a
vote. As we have seen, the IETF doesn't get a vote on who
Foretec employs and in what positions, either. So, if the
ownership of Foretec changes before March, I don't think we
formally care... at least as long as Bob Kahn keeps his personal
commitment to continue to keep the current secretariat model in
operation and working well until satisfactory other arrangements
are made, and I have every confidence that he will keep that
commitment.
Now, by contrast and purely hypothetically, if Neustar comes to
the IETF and says "we are willing to make this deal with CNRI if
and only if the IETF will guarantee us some number of years to
operate the secretariat under the current terms that IETF has
with CRNI/Foretec", then IETF acquires some standing to respond
and some options for doing so. Those options include saying
"this seems like a fine idea in principle, and we will commend
you to the IASA for your helpful intentions, but we can't make
any time commitments past the date that the IAOC opens up
competition on an RFP, a competition in which you are free to
engage. However, if the terms and conditions of the current
relationship with Foretec were acceptable to us long-term, we
would not have initiated the Admin Reorganization process, which
you, as participants in the community, presumably know perfectly
well".
I think that's a good use of the transition team.
As long as the transition team doesn't start making up the rules
as it goes along, or take actions that render provisions of the
BCP meaningless, I do too. Since your comments above seem to
indicate that you and the transition team understand that it
doesn't have the authority to do either of those things, we are
probably in full agreement.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf