Hi Patrice,
I noticed the Internet-Draft that you posted regarding IETF Administrative Restructuring, and I have a few comments on it, speaking as one interested member of the IETF community to another.
For those who have not seen Patrice's draft, it can be found at:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lyons-proposed-changes-statement-00.txt
I found the history section of this draft to be quite interesting and informative. Thank you for sharing it.
I think it is important for the IETF community to understand and appreciate the huge contributions of many key individuals and groups, including Bob Kahn and CNRI, in helping us to achieve our past and current success.
The draft also points out CNRI's commitment to supporting the IETF through this administrative restructuring process in accordance with the consensus of the IETF community. I would personally like to thank you, and especially Bob Kahn, for your contributions to this process and for your willingness to support the IETF through this transition.
The primary proposal in your draft seems to be that we should incorporate the IETF (including the standards function), and ask the current IESG to serve as the Board of Directors. The IETF would then hire an Executive Director and contract for administrative services directly.
A few others have also suggested that we incorporate the IETF itself, rather than defining a separate administrative support function, and that possibility was briefly discussed on the IETF list in early September (see Harald's September 2nd post with the subject "What to incorporate"). On the surface, it seems simpler and more obvious to incorporate the IETF than to incorporate a separate administrative support function (as in Scenario C), or to organize our administrative support function under an existing corporation (as in Scenario O). So, I do think that there is something compelling about your proposal.
However, several people have pointed out the importance of keeping the cash flow (meeting fees, donations, meeting sponsorships and contracts for support services) separate from the IETF standards process itself, in order to maintain the independence and credibility of our technical work. It has been pointed out that other major standards bodies, such as the IEEE and INCITS/ITS have chosen to separate their financial and administrative functions from their standards work, and that these groups serve as a model that the IETF might choose to follow. So, it is quite possible that incorporating the IETF itself would actually require setting up two separate corporations -- a standards function (that deals only with our technical work) and an administrative support function (that deals with all administrative, financial and contractual matters).
In my personal opinion, one of our paramount concerns in this process should be to maintain the integrity and credibility of the IETF as an independent standards body, and I believe that maintaining a separation between our standards function and our administrative support function is vital to maintaining that integrity and credibility. Do you agree that this type of separation is important? If so, how would you maintain that separation in your proposal?
If you accept that the standards function and the administrative support function should be separate, then it is possible to discuss restructuring and formalizing our administrative support function, while leaving the IETF standards function as-is -- a loosely-defined, unincorporated entity. In my personal opinion, this is the best path to follow at this time, as I see no particular benefit to incorporating the IETF standards function. Do you see benefits to incorporating the IETF standards function that I may be missing?
Have you had an opportunity to read the Scenario C and Scenario O proposals that are currently under discussion on the IETF list? You can find them here:
Scenario C: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg31321.html Scenario O: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg31326.html
I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts and feedback regarding these two scenarios, as I believe that you may have a unique perspective to offer regarding the organizational, legal and functional impacts of these choices.
Thanks again for your contributions to this discussion so far, and I hope that you will continue to participate in these discussions as an interested and knowledgeable member of the IETF community.
Margaret
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf