Firstly congratulations to all those involved in compiling this work. I have three questions before being able to comment in more detail. 1/ Has a decision been made not to sub contract out (under formal agreements) the tasks currently being managed fairly informally by Foretec/CNRI to professional adminstration organisations? 2/ What funding requirement is expected from ISOC and ISOC members to manage the IETF functions outlined? 3/ Do we have an analysis of the policy implications in bringing responsibility for the administration of Internet Standards negotiation into the same body that is responsible for their oversight (via appointment of IAB and Trustee appeal role)? Christian Christian de Larrinaga ------------------------------------------------------------------ Deploying Internet services? You need to participate in the UK IPv6 Deployment Conference Manchester September 24th 2004 www.uk.ipv6tf.org alongside RIPE 49, 21st to 24th Sept 2004 ------------------------------------------------------------------ -----Original Message----- From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Leslie Daigle Sent: 26 August 2004 00:54 To: ietf@xxxxxxxx Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand Subject: Options for IETF administrative restructuring Hello, IETF community. Attached is the document we promised you in San Diego - a report from our consultant, Carl Malamud, which lays out a series of options and recommendations for moving forward with the IETF administrative restructuring process, according to the recommendations laid out in RFC3716 (the Advisory Committee report). It has been submitted to the Internet Drafts repository and should be showing up there shortly. Some important things to note: THIS IS NOT A DOCUMENT TO BE READ IN ISOLATION. Minimally, reviewing the Advisory Committee report (RFC3716) is necessary to understand the context of the proposals laid out in this draft. THIS IS NOT YET AN IETF DECISION. That will be taken later, based on your input and IETF rough consensus. THIS IS NOT THE IESG/IAB's RECOMMENDATION. Our recommendation will come later, based on your input and the evolution of our thinking. THIS IS NOT AN ISOC POSITION. The document describes potential relationships of the IETF administrative activity and ISOC. However, the document is written as a proposal for IETF discussion -- the ISOC Board has not been asked to formulate a position on supporting one or any of these proposals; we need to have that discussion as it becomes clearer what the IETF wants in its future. This IS, however, the culmination of many, many hours of information gathering and a near-infinite number of conversations by Carl Malamud, attempting to give the best basis on which the IETF could make a decision that he could within the timeframe given. We encourage all interested IETF participants to read the report most carefully, and give feedback on it - on the IETF list for public discussion, directly to Carl or the IETF and IAB chairs if you want to make off-list comments. FURTHER STEPS The next steps in this process depend on the community feedback and whether we can gauge a consensus of the IETF on this mailing list. What we think is reasonable so far is: - Have a public discussion on the IETF list on the options presented in the draft - By early September, the IESG and IAB will attempt to distill a set of recommendations that we think capture a reasonable consensus of the community, and publish this as an internet-draft, which will be revised over the next month, possibly several times, based on further discussions - By late September, we emit a Last Call on this set of recommendations, if we deem that we have a reasonable consensus for the proposals - By late October, if the IETF community still shows consensus, we will declare that we have a decision, and will start executing based on that decision. In order to be able to move rapidly when we go into the "execution" phase, we may initiate some activities of a "fact-finding" nature - such as investigating possible suppliers of services and candidates for the positions we envisage filling - before that, but irrevocable decisions will await IETF consensus. Please read the attachment - please comment - please THINK. While this in itself should not change the IETF standards process at all, support functions are important to the IETF. We need to take the time to get this one right. Leslie and Harald. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- "Reality: Yours to discover." -- ThinkingCat Leslie Daigle leslie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf