On 2 sep 2004, at 07.11, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Yes that would be helpful.
Well, I don't agree. I think it would defocus the discussion (which is about putting the IETF's administration onto a business-like basis). IMHO the only case in which we should discuss the wider option is if the newtrk WG proposes changes in the standards process that would make such a thing necessary.
I guess I don't understand this comment.
As I see it, one reason for another option would have to do with the independence of the IETF to change its processes, should it want to. Not necessarily because it has a plan today to do so.
One of the concerns I have over the ISOC dependent mechanisms, which I guess is all of the presented options, is the link between budgeting and process. If a process change requires a different form of budgeting support, would the IETF need the approval of ISOC to make that change? Often what seems like a purely technical decision has policy and budgetary implications. Assuming that we don't want to have reconsider the organizational relationship again in the near future, I believe we need to take such possibilities into account.
I think another consideration in making these administrative decisions has to do with the IETF's voice in the general standards and Internet governance arena. Will ISOC, as a 'parent' organization - my interpretation of the options that are offered, be the responsible party for such activities? E.g. currently for a liaison to the ITU, it is ISOC that is the liaison association. Should ISOC disagree with the IETF position on a liaison matter who has the final say? Likewise with the ongoing governance debate in the international arena, will ISOC or the IETF be the negotiating body? And before we decide that this is just policy and does not relate to protocol issues, we should not ignore the intimate link between policy and technical - while it is not always direct, there generally is a technical implication in policy decisions and, generally, also a policy impact in technical decisions. Basically I am concerned about the real independence of the IETF as a technical standards body when ISOC, which the IETF does not control, has the governing policy and financial voice.
I would be interested in seeing an analysis of an option which has the IETF as a independent nonprofit corporate entity. This could be either as a wholly owned subsidiary of ISOC, thus keeping the fiduciary relationship, or as completely independent organization.
a.
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf