Margaret,
Thanks for sharing my Internet-Draft on the IETF administrative processes with the IETF discussion list. I also appreciated your recognition and kind words about the role played by CNRI, and Bob Kahn in particular, in supporting the IETF community. I have since revised my Internet-Draft somewhat in light of informal suggestions received from various persons, and added a few words to clarify certain issues you raised in your comments. The revised version is posted at: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lyons-proposed-changes-statement-01.txt
You mentioned the importance of keeping support services, such as management of cash flow, separate from IETF technical efforts. I share this concern in large part. However, I would draw a distinction between carrying out routine administrative, financial (like accounting for expenses and meeting fees), technical (such as computer rooms at meetings), legal or other support services for the IETF ("support services"), and the solicitation, donation, receipt and other fundraising efforts for IETF purposes ("fundraising").
Apart from the provision of routine IETF support services, fundraising for the IETF is a potential source of conflict of interest. To minimize the possibility that a contributor of funds for IETF purposes might be perceived as having an undue influence on IETF standards setting work, I have proposed that a new, separately incorporated and independent entity called the IETF Foundation be established to manage the IETF fundraising activities. While the IETF Foundation would necessarily need to coordinate with the IETF leadership on IETF funding needs, the Foundation would not have any operational role (whether administrative, technical or otherwise) with respect to the IETF itself. A mission of this new organization would be to interface directly with funding sources and provide a buffer between such sources and the IETF.
In any event, the IETF retains the fiduciary obligation to supervise and control any support services provided to the IETF by third parties, including any possible new administrative entity that may be established to serve the IETF community. While supervisory responsibility for certain support services (whether under contract or simply volunteer) may be delegated by the IETF to others, the obligation to provide general oversight for such activities resides ultimately with the IETF leadership, in particular the IESG. It would not be appropriate for the IETF to give up this vital oversight responsibility in the interest of administrative efficiency.
Please let me know if this clarification of my comments meets your concerns. I look forward to resolving the administrative issues that have been under discussion recently, but would add a note of caution on a rush to judgment. The reorganization issues under consideration are of major importance for the future of the IETF, and the Internet community more generally.
Regards,
Patrice <palyons@xxxxxxx>
P.S. Since I just subscribed to the IETF discussion list and haven't received official notification yet, I would appreciate it if you would again share my comments with the list.
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf