Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on where from here

Brian E Carpenter <brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> · Tue, 21 Sep 2004 11:10:22 +0200

Thanks, to you and the various authors, for this effort
and for reducing the choice to a binary one.

To me, this clarifies that it's a one-horse race. I just can't
see any argument for the extra complexity, overhead cost, and
risk of Scenario C.

Obviously we would need to hack at the details of Scenario O,
but for me there is no doubt that it's the way to go.

(My only regret is that Scenario O text doesn't include a short
risk analysis, like Sceanrio C.)

Regards
    Brian

Leslie Daigle wrote:

Folks,

10 days ago, some members of the IAB and IESG started to review
the IETF discussion on the adminrest subject, attempting to
determine what recommendations to draw, or how to elicit more
discussion to lead to being able to provide some recommendations
for moving forward.  It seemed like the 2 paths that were seriously
under consideration by the community were:

    . establishing a separate corporate entity for the
      administrative function, with continued strong relations with
      and funding from ISOC  (this is basically Scenario C from Carl's
      document, with some adjustments).

    . carrying the administrative function out within ISOC
      itself, as an activity that was formalized by IETF
      process and largely overseen by IETF-accountable
      appointees. This has aspects of Scenarios A and B
      from Carl's document, but differs in that it doesn't
      make any suggestion of change to the ISOC structure,
      while it attempts to define and encapsulate the IETF
      administrative activity.  This is referred to as
      Scenario O, below.

It seemed that the best way to stimulate further discussion
on the IETF mailing list about these paths was to provide a more
fleshed out view of how they each might be accomplished.

Accordingly, some people volunteered to write down some text
for each, drawing on and extending Carl's documents.  The
outcome of that writing exercise will be circulated here
later today -- i.e., a note describing a possible implementation
of Scenario C in more detail, and a separate note describing
the derived scenario (dubbed "Scenario O").

One thing that is important to note about these notes
is that there is a lot of commonality in their structure,
and a number of places where the text could have been
copied from one to the other.  For example, both have
some form of oversight board or committee.  The details as
written, however, *do* differ between the notes.  This
is because the contexts are slightly different for the
2 scenarios, and because the differences amount to details
we can debate and fix if we pick one of these to move
forward with.  I.e., "who is a voting member of the oversight
group" should not be a deciding factor in whether you
think the revised Scenario C is better than Scenario O, or
vice versa.

The IAB and IESG have not discussed these extensively, but have
helped to try and get better and clarified documentation of each
of those Scenarios.  The IESG and IAB are now reviewing them
in detail. We are also following your discussions/comments
very carefully, and based on that they will evaluate to try
and come to a recommendation.  So we are eagerly awaiting your
thoughts and inputs on whether either of these seems to be
a viable path or what further work needs to be done.

Leslie.

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf