Re: first steps (was The other parts of the report...)

Margaret Wasserman <> Sun, 12 September 2004 16:14 UTC

Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA23527; Sun, 12 Sep 2004 12:14:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C6X4c-0003KN-U1; Sun, 12 Sep 2004 12:19:32 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C6Wwa-0001yU-Eu; Sun, 12 Sep 2004 12:11:12 -0400
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C6WnB-0000op-IY for; Sun, 12 Sep 2004 12:01:29 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA22890 for <>; Sun, 12 Sep 2004 12:01:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C6Wrb-00039N-GE for; Sun, 12 Sep 2004 12:06:06 -0400
Received: from [] (account margaret HELO []) by (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 155787; Sun, 12 Sep 2004 11:57:01 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06020401bd6a1b55497f@[]>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 12:00:05 -0400
From: Margaret Wasserman <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 4adaf050708fb13be3316a9eee889caa
Subject: Re: first steps (was The other parts of the report...)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8b431ad66d60be2d47c7bfeb879db82c

Hi Scott,

At 5:06 PM -0400 9/11/04, scott bradner wrote:
>imo it would least disruptive to follow option #3 (combo path)
>and try to negotiate a sole source contract with Foretec/CNRI for
>what Carl called the clerk function and maybe some other functions
>(imo it would be better to outsorce the management of the mailing
>lists and their archives to a company in that business)

Mailing list management and web hosting (not content) are two obvious 
candidates for separate contracts if we choose to go with a 
multi-part RFP process.  These items are quite independent and 
non-IETF specific.

Meeting planning is another chunk that could be considered 
separately, but the way we do it today has a lot of tie-ins to IETF 
activities -- rules/notices about WG vs. BOF scheduling, proceedings, 
network, terminal rooms, multicast, sponsorship, etc.  So, if we 
outsource the meeting planning separately from the "clerk" function, 
we would have to carefully define the line between the two,  and that 
line may not be quite where it lies inside Foretec today.

Also, even if we somehow outsource a few of the more 
separable/generic tasks independently, there is still a large amount 
of IETF-specific work that needs to be done by someone -- I-D 
handling, supporting the IESG review/approval process, handling IPR 
notices, keeping track of WG charters, maintaining our web content, 
etc.  It would not be easy to outsource these functions to multiple 
groups.  It would require extensive effort to define the interfaces 
between the different functions, and a lot of duplicate work to train 
multiple groups in the details of the IETF processes and culture.

I have some concerns that if we try to break off a few of the simpler 
chunks, the effort of coordinating between those chunks may be larger 
than the benefits that would accrue from allowing competition in the 
mailing list management, web hosting and meeting planning areas.  So, 
this is something we should think about carefully.  A multi-part RFP 
process that allows organizations to submit multi-part bids (i.e.  if 
we run the clerk's office,  we will also do meeting planning for $XXX 
) might give us some insight into whether ecomomies of scale make it 
cheaper to go with a single provider for all services, or if it 
actually works out that it is cheaper/better for some functions to be 
provided by people who specialize in them.


Ietf mailing list