Joel,
Thanks for your comments.
First, incorporation of the IETF. While there are many reasons why incorporation of an association is desirable, one important reason for a technical association like IETF to incorporate is the substantial increase in exposure to potential liabilities arising from conflicting patent claims that has arisen over the last few years. In this context, there has been some talk of donation recently of patents for IETF, particularly a group of patents, for IETF purposes at little or no cost.
What happens if a group of pooled patents is donated to IETF by the very organization that also controls funding for the IETF? What happens if such an organization is under no direct control by the IETF and takes steps that embroil the IETF in patent litigation? Where an organization has a Board of Directors or Trustees that are drawn for the most part from a corporate group that may have some direct interest in seeing say a patented architecture dominate any architecture or architectural elements viewed as competitive, and decides to use funding as a mechanism to influence IETF decisions, say withholding funds from the IETF that would enable the IETF to retain a patent attorney to mount a legal challenge, how is the IETF to continue to operate effectively in the public interest?
In posing these questions, a further suggestion comes to mind: perhaps the proposed new IETF Foundation could also receive patent donations. Then the IETF could independently consider, in accordance with the IETF procedures, whether or not to accept such donations and to establish a working group(s) to further vet them. But this may be a bit complicated to get into at this stage of the dialogue. The basic steps of filing incorporation papers -- really not expensive or time consuming -- and encouraging the establishment of the proposed IETF Foundation appear to be a reasonable way forward that wouldn't require much effort.
Second, you raised a question about ISOC. While my comments didn't single out ISOC, if ISOC is viewed as a fundraising entity or an actual source of funds for the IETF, and is also the organization charged with hiring an Administrative Director for the IETF and supervising his/her efforts such as contracting with third parties for IETF support services, I would again assert: where are the checks and balances. The functions of funder and/or fundraiser should be separate from control of what consitutes a CEO for the IETF, particularly since the current plans being discussed would appear to relegate the IETF oversight of such functions to an intermediary group. What I term the IETF Executive Director would be hired by the IETF itself and remain under its direct supervision (please not: this is a different role from the current job description of the Executive Director of the IETF Secretariat).
Regards,
Patrice
P.S. I've just subscribed to the IETF discussion list and, although I've
cc'd it on my reply to you, please share my comments with the list in
the event I'm not listed yet. Thx.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Joel M. Halpern" <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <palyons@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 6:00 PM
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-lyons-proposed-changes-statement-01.txt
Many of the items in this draft (and its earlier version) are very interesting and helpful.
However, I am missing a step in your reasoning. You state "it appears desirable for ... to reconsider the current legal status of the Internet Engineering Task Force." I understand your statement that establishing a corporate structure is not really a very difficult or expensive step. (I think given this community, establishing such a structure that the community is happy with may be hard, but I understand that the legal side may well not be difficult.) What I am missing is the supporting argument for why it is important to make such a change at this time. Given the many problems the organization is currently facing, it would seem that spending energy examining / making this sort of change would have to be driven by a significant benefit. It is possible that you did spell out this benefit, and I missed it reading through this document.
On a related note, you seem to be arguing that a new funding body, distinct from ISOC, should be created. Given that ISOC sees funding the IETF as one of its primary roles, I would wonder why we would want to duplicate that function.
Yours, Joel M. Halpern
At 10:35 AM 10/20/2004 -0400, you wrote:A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
Title : IETF: Proposed Organizational Changes Author(s) : P. Lyons Filename : draft-lyons-proposed-changes-statement-01.txt,.pdf Pages : 0 Date : 2004-10-19
This memo outlines the nature of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) as an unincorporated association, reviews some history of the IETF Secretariat relevant to the current structure of the organization, and proposes steps that might be taken to move forward in the interest of the Internet community more generally. Since the IETF serves as a focal point in the technical evolution of the Internet infrastructure, it is important that any organizational changes take into account the wider public interest. Considerations of who provides support to the IETF hinge on the legal status of the IETF itself. Steps should be taken to clarify this matter as a first priority.
A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lyons-proposed-changes-statement-01.txt
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf