Hi Harald,
At 9:32 AM +0200 9/6/04, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
These BCPs are the IETF's expectations on IETF behaviour. They cannot constrain the behaviour of ISOC, unless ISOC makes an explict commitment by Board resolution to do so, as it has done for its roles in the standards process, the Nomcom process and IPR issues.
Any of the choices that you have put forth would require an explicit resolution by the ISOC Board of Trustees. I don't personally think that one type of ISOC Board resolution represents a lesser commitment than another, and I believe that ISOC's track record shows that we take the responsibilities quite seriously that we have accepted based on IETF BCPs.
At 9:32 AM +0200 9/6/04, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
- Declarations in the form of changes to ISOC bylaws to enshrine ISOC's commitment to the IETF support function (Mechanism 1)
Just a point of clarification:
The ISOC By-Laws do not say anything about what ISOC does. They only describe the top-level ISOC governance structure, such as the responsibilities of the ISOC President and Board of Trustees. The By-Laws don't even state how the Board is constituted or selected, those decisions are left to the Board.
What changes would you suggest at this level to enshrine ISOC's commitment to the IETF support function?
It would make more sense, IMO, to update ISOC's guiding principals and mission (http://www.isoc.org/isoc/mission/principles/) to include an expanded responsibility for IETF support.
- Promises from ISOC to the IETF community in the form of an MoU between ISOC and the IETF (Mechanism 5)
I don't understand what legal entity would hold up the "IETF" end of this MOU. Currently when someone needs to make a contract with the IETF (the RFC Editor, another standards group, a hotel, etc.) that contract is signed by either ISOC or CNRI/Foretec acting on behalf of the IETF. Do you know of some way that the IETF (by which I think you mean the standards development portion) can be an MOU signatory? Would the IETF approve the MOU by publishing a BCP on our end?
- Changes to the ISOC governance structure so that it is more likely that any potential conflict will be detected early, and that action will be taken to fix it in a manner that is satisfactory to the IETF (mechanisms 2, 3, 4, 6, 7)
I have some quibbles with the specific mechanisms described in Carl's document, but something along these lines might be feasible. I don't personally think that these changes are necessary, though, because I believe that the ISOC and IETF governance and funding models are already sufficiently intertwined.
IMO, no set of BCPs, MOUs, By-Laws or rules will ensure the philosophical and strategic alignment of two separate communities over the long term. Either there is natural alignment (because we are comprised of and accountable to a single community, as I believe that the IETF and ISOC are today) or there is not. The real answer to maintaining ISOC's alignment (or the alignment of any corporation) with the IETF community is for the IETF community to remain actively engaged in ISOC. We can do this by becoming members of ISOC, volunteering to serve on the ISOC Board or ISOC committees, joining ISOC chapters, participating in ISOC Board member elections, influencing the choice of IETF-selected Board members, responding to ISOC opinion polls, attending ISOC Board meetings, etc.
Although there is already a significant level of engagement between ISOC and the IETF community, I think that an increase in ISOC's responsibilities to the IETF should be accompanied by an increase in IETF community engagement in ISOC. This increased engagement may happen as a natural outgrowth of ISOC taking increased responsibility, or we may need to do some things to encourage it.
Margaret
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf