In reading through a number of the recent postings, I am struck with the focus each has on different time horizons. Bert's posts indicate he wants the reforms we're engaged in now to work for his children; others' indicate that they're concerned that near term hurdles in the process could damage the IETF beyond salvage or will distract the IETF from more critical reform of the standards track.
Both are very valuable points of view, no matter how difficult it may seem to reconcile them at the moment. From my perspective, we need to have a vision of the long term for the IETF in mind, as we recognize that tactical concerns affect the selection of immediate solutions.
For me, an end state in which an IASF can itself be a support to the IETF and the Internet community is a good one. I recognize that means that there will need to be a process of growing that organization into that role, and that process will likely involving nurturing with funds and attention in the short term; in the longer term, I hope that meeting fees will help make the IASF self-sufficient or nearly so.
As a thought experiment, imagine that the RFC Editor staff had a lottery group with a winning ticket and decided en masse to retire. If ISI decided on some basis not to rebuild that team, the IETF would have to look elsewhere for publication of its standards. I would expect ISOC, which has funded the RFC Editor for many years, to have a strong role in that process. It might even under some circumstances take on a much more direct role, re-using its existing resources to keep the function going as the RFC Editor team transitioned to their new roles as philanthropists and people of leisure.
I would expect over time, though, that the standards publication function would move back out of ISOC into some other independent entity. The skills needed to run the RFC Editor are different from the skills needed to handle the policy, education, and outreach functions of ISOC. The independence of the RFC Editor's decisions on non-IETF documents are also easier to make clear to the community when it is an independent entity. In short, the RFC Editor serves itself as an independent support to the IETF and the Internet community, even as it is funded by ISOC.
If the current RFC Editor won the lottery, getting back to that state with a new standards publication entity would take the time, attention, and financial support of ISOC. But ISOC would be incubating that new organization and/or relationship; it would not be becoming the RFC Editor. And I think the same view holds here--the Internet community is counting on ISOC to help incubate a new relationship (which might even be a new relationship with the existing folks doing the work). But incubating that relationship and the IETF support organization that anchors it does not mean that the ISOC needs to become that support organization. In the short term, yes, the organization needs ISOC's support, time, and attention; in the longer term, the community is better off if an IASF can serve as an independent support (whether funded by fees, ISOC, or some combination of the two).
If that means that tactically we start out with scenario O and consider other changes as they are needed; okay--that may be the tactical necessity. I believe, though, that the strategic vision should remain one of independent supporting organizations, and that we should reach for that now if we believe we can get there. Multiple transitions will be painful, either for us our successors, and saving that pain is a worthwhile goal unless we are very sure that the staged transition has other benefits.
Just two cents from an IETF participant, regards, Ted Hardie
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf