Margaret,
Thanks for the clarification. I inferred - incorrectly - that there
were problems with the RFC editor / ISOC relationship.
Regards,
Graham Travers
International Standards Manager
BT Group
e-mail: graham.travers@xxxxxx
tel: +44(0) 1359 235086
mobile: +44(0) 7808 502536
HWB279, PO Box 200,London, N18 1ZF, UK
BT Group plc
Registered office: 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ
Registered in England and Wales no. 4190816 This electronic message
contains information from BT Group plc which may be privileged or
confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended
recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of
the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received
this electronic message in error, please notify us by telephone or email
(to the numbers or address above) immediately. Activity and use of the
BT Group plc E-mail system is monitored to secure its effective
operation and for other lawful business purposes. Communications using
this system will also be monitored and may be recorded to secure
effective operation and for other lawful business purposes.
-----Original Message-----
From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:margaret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 06 September 2004 13:39
To: Travers,G,Graham,CXT R; ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Options for IETF administrative restructuring
Hi Graham,
I'd like to make a couple of comments on your post -- not to argue
with you (because I think we are in basic agreement), but just to
clarify my earlier comments.
At 12:31 PM +0100 9/6/04, graham.travers@xxxxxx wrote:
>4. However, Margaret has written about problems with existing
>arrangements. While option A or B *might* solve the CNRI/Secretariat
>issues, how would it help the ( apparent ) RFC Editor issues ?
I do not personally believe that there any significant issues with
the current organizational relationship between the RFC Editor and
the IETF (as represented by the IAB & ISOC). We have a well-defined
relationship, defined in a publicly-available MOU. The funding model
of the RFC Editor is well-understood, we have clear visibility into
what we are funding, the ownership of the IETF's intellectual
property is clear (currently owned by ISOC), and I personally think
that we're getting an excellent deal.
What I pointed out was a problem with having two different funding
pools, and therefore two different corporations (ISOC and
CNRI/Foretec, in this case) that claim ownership of the real or
intellectual property that is purchased or developed using money from
those funding pools.
Perhaps I was vague enough to be unintelligible, so I'll be more
explicit. But, please do remember that I am not a lawyer and do not
fully understand the legal aspects of these things.
One of the things that I would like to see us do is to integrate (to
some extent, anyway) the I-D Tracker and the RFC Editor Queue
management tools, so that we can track a document from the time it is
published as an I-D through RFC publication. I have every belief
that the RFC editor would cooperate in this effort, but we can't make
real progress in this area because we (the IETF leadership and/or the
IETF community) don't have the source code to the I-D Tracker and we
haven't been allowed to access any tools that can do database
reporting (full data dumps, for example) from the I-D Tracker. The
explanation I have been given for why we do not have these things is
that CNRI/Foretec claims ownership of the I-D Tracker (the source
code, the machines it runs on and the data it contains) because it
was developed by them. Since there is no contract in place that
asserts IETF ownership of anything that is developed using our
meeting fees, they may even be correct.
If one organization were funding (and therefore owned) the tools on
both sides, we could not get into a situation where one organization
was claiming ownership of a vital IETF tool and would not give us
(the IETF leadership and/or the IETF community) the access necessary
to leverage that tool across other IETF functions.
>As I
>understand it, the RFC Editor contract is already managed by ISOC. If
>we have a problem with the way that relationship works now, why would
>it help to put the CNRI/Secretariat relationship on the same footing ?
>Since I don't know what the specific problems are, this needs to be
>addressed by someone with the benefit of IESG / IAB experience.
There are several people with substantially more IESG/IAB experience
than I have, so I will allow them to comment further (if they like)
on the RFC Editor relationship. However, as I said above, I didn't
mean to imply that there was anything significantly wrong with the
organizational relationship between the RFC Editor and the IETF, and
I don't think that there is anything wrong.
>5. Section 3.1 of Carl's Report ( Page 20 ) states "Evaluation of
>applicants might consist of a search committee appointed by the IETF
>Chair." Isn't the appointment of committee members what the IETF
>empowers the Nomcom for ?
IMO, this is a good point.
That said, I think that we need to determine the basic structure of
this function before we determine the mechanism that we should use to
hire the Administrative Director to run it. If we go with the
approach that I have suggested where a community-selected (by which I
mean NomCom-selected) board would run the administrative functions of
the IETF, then I think that the Administrative Director should be
selected by the members of that Board. Also, if we do decided to
organize as a portion of ISOC (under either Scenario A or B), it
might make sense for the President/CEO of ISOC to have some say in
who is hired to work within her organization in this capacity.
Margaret
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf