Harald, I think this is all to the good. Several specific comments below. --On Wednesday, 26 January, 2005 09:29 +0100 Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > John, > > attempting to take some higher-level process issues first, > before answering questions in detail: > > The question Neustar asked the transition team could be > roughly represented as "If we make this deal with CNRI, will > the IETF community think that we tried to help, or be mad at > us for interfering?". > > It was obvious to us, as the transition team, that we could > not answer that definitely - we have no power to decide on > behalf of the community. But after listening to what Neustar > had to say, we were able to say: > > - We will *share* with the community our opinion that this > effort could help achieve a transition with less conflict and > uncertainty than going straight from a CNRI-provided > secretariat to an open RFP process would. Can you explain (if you have not already done so in your longer note) why you think this helps if the issues associated with CNRI-claimed IPR and agreements with ISOC that prevent lodging certain IETF administrative and support functions under an ISOC umbrella remain unresolved? It seems to me that those issues are the clear loci of potential "conflict and uncertainty". If this intermediate transition does not address them, is it of significant help compared with the potential simplicity of a one-step process? > - We will *recommend* to the to-be-established IASA and IAOC > that if this deal happens, they will negotiate in good faith > with Neustar on a contract for these services. See my earlier comments, responding to Brian, about the BCP draft and sole-source, unsolicited, proposals. > I believe both of these actions are entirely within the remit > of the transition team. Yes. Certainly the transition team can inform the community and make any recommendations it finds appropriate. > We do have something of a timing problem here - if we want our > IAD to negotiate a contract, we cannot sign a contract before > we have an IAD; we cannot hire the IAD before we have an IASA > to do the hiring; we cannot establish an IASA before we have a > BCP; we cannot approve a BCP before the text stands still. Yes, and I believe the community understood that issue when consensus was reached on the transition team not being an interim IAOC. > But this event is occuring now - Neustar and CNRI are saying > that it would be an advantage in practical terms to have this > deal concluded before the March IETF. It would be very strange > if we were so caught up in the formalities of IASA > establishment that nobody was able to talk to them, look at > what they are offering, and say "this appears to be helpful, > thank you for trying". Harald, while I am not arguing against this idea -- just attempting to understand its ramifications, context, and the problems it does or does not solve --I suggest that the two do not have anything to do with each other. In the strange world in which we have been living for the last several years, and in which we live today, the IETF's relationship with the secretariat (including mailing list and meeting planning functions -- see Scott's note) is informal and with a legal entity called "Foretec". While we might wish it otherwise, the question of whether Foretec is a subsidiary of CNRI, of Neustar, of some yet-to-be-created entity, or is completely independent is not a subject on which the IETF gets a vote. As we have seen, the IETF doesn't get a vote on who Foretec employs and in what positions, either. So, if the ownership of Foretec changes before March, I don't think we formally care... at least as long as Bob Kahn keeps his personal commitment to continue to keep the current secretariat model in operation and working well until satisfactory other arrangements are made, and I have every confidence that he will keep that commitment. Now, by contrast and purely hypothetically, if Neustar comes to the IETF and says "we are willing to make this deal with CNRI if and only if the IETF will guarantee us some number of years to operate the secretariat under the current terms that IETF has with CRNI/Foretec", then IETF acquires some standing to respond and some options for doing so. Those options include saying "this seems like a fine idea in principle, and we will commend you to the IASA for your helpful intentions, but we can't make any time commitments past the date that the IAOC opens up competition on an RFP, a competition in which you are free to engage. However, if the terms and conditions of the current relationship with Foretec were acceptable to us long-term, we would not have initiated the Admin Reorganization process, which you, as participants in the community, presumably know perfectly well". > I think that's a good use of the transition team. As long as the transition team doesn't start making up the rules as it goes along, or take actions that render provisions of the BCP meaningless, I do too. Since your comments above seem to indicate that you and the transition team understand that it doesn't have the authority to do either of those things, we are probably in full agreement. john _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf