Re: There is no proposal on the table for *IETF* incorporation (Was: Explosive bolts [Re: Options for IETF administrative restructuring]

Margaret Wasserman <> Wed, 08 September 2004 22:49 UTC

Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA00161; Wed, 8 Sep 2004 18:49:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C5BJa-00053Y-Tw; Wed, 08 Sep 2004 18:53:26 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C5BAd-0006cR-Fk; Wed, 08 Sep 2004 18:44:07 -0400
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C5B8i-00069s-GE for; Wed, 08 Sep 2004 18:42:08 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29815 for <>; Wed, 8 Sep 2004 18:42:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C5BCH-0004x7-5Y for; Wed, 08 Sep 2004 18:46:00 -0400
Received: from [] (account margaret HELO []) by (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 154163; Wed, 08 Sep 2004 18:37:42 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p0602047cbd65358b5193@[]>
In-Reply-To: <p06200932bd652dda966a@[]>
References: <> <> <> <a06001825bd64f848f822@[]> <p06200932bd652dda966a@[]>
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 18:41:45 -0400
To: Pete Resnick <>, "Lynn St.Amour" <>
From: Margaret Wasserman <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 769a46790fb42fbb0b0cc700c82f7081
Subject: Re: There is no proposal on the table for *IETF* incorporation (Was: Explosive bolts [Re: Options for IETF administrative restructuring]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 538aad3a3c4f01d8b6a6477ca4248793

Hi Pete,

At 6:17 PM -0400 9/8/04, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>>To date, there has been no proposal, in Carl's document or 
>>otherwise as far as I know, for *the IETF* to incorporate as a 
>>separate entity. There have been proposals to incorporate a body to 
>>deal with IETF administrative functions (like contracting for 
>>meetings, contracting for ISP and web service, etc.), referred to 
>>in Carl's document as "IETF Foundation". Incorporating that sort of 
>>entity wouldn't change

I don't think that there is a clear yes/no answer to your question.

Carl's draft makes a distinction between the "*Administrative 
Functions*" and "*Standards Process Functions*" of ISOC, where the 
administrative functions and standards process functions are defined 
as follows:

   "1.  *Administration Functions.* As discussed in subsequent sections,
        the Internet Society provides an administrative and financial
        function, managing the contract with the RFC Editor, providing
        insurance for selected IETF participants, and administering a
        discretionary fund for use by the IAB and the IETF Chairs.

    2.  *Standards Process Functions* The Internet Society plays a
        fundamental role in the IETF Standards Process, including
        appointment of the Nominating Committee chair, confirmation of
        IAB members, confirmation of documents that describe the
        standards process, and acting as the last resort in the appeals
        process.  These Standards Process Functions are defined in
        [RFC2028], [RFC2031], and [RFC3677] and are out of scope for this
        analysis.  No changes are proposed to these Standards Process

Carl's document explicitly states that ISOC's role in the standards 
process (in item 2 above) is "out of scope", but leaves open the 
possibility of changes to ISOC's administrative functions (item 1), 
which include insurance coverage.

A note for future versions:  This breakdown omits ISOC's fund raising 
efforts.  It also omits the fact that ISOC currently funds the RFC 


Ietf mailing list