RE: Options for IETF administrative restructuring

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

I'll add one point. Many of the ISOC's organizational members 
(http://www.isoc.org/orgs/, http://www.isoc.org/orgs/orgsbytype.shtml) are 
companies that employ IETF participants or are otherwise related to the 
standards process. The IETF is near and dear to their hearts as well, often 
very explicitly so.

The current structure of the board has three IETF-appointed positions, six 
positions elected by the organizational members, and three that are elected 
by the ISOC Chapters. In the coming few years, a new category of paying 
individual members may (this is not assured) gain as many as three 
additional seats. Today, IETF directly selects 3/12 of the board and has 
strong influence on another half of it; this is a direct or indirect 
influence on 75% of the ISOC Board. That may change in time to 3/15 plus 
6/15, which is still a 60% supermajority.

I would not think it wise to understate the influence the IETF has on the 
Internet Society. We have other goals and activities in addition to the 
IETF, but the IETF is very powerful in ISOC.


At 07:26 PM 09/07/04 -0400, Steve Crocker wrote:
>Leslie,
>
>Thanks.  Your basic point is well taken, but I think there are two
>important additional layers.  As you said, the IETF's appointees to the
>ISOC board function first and foremost as ISOC board members, not as
>IETF's representatives.  This is the same for all the board members.
>The IETF appointees to the board have functioned extremely well on
>behalf of ISOC.  Indeed, Fred Baker, the chair, is an IETF appointee,
>and his election as chair is a signal that the rest of the board values
>his leadership across the full range of interests and responsibilities
>we have to deal with.
>
>Here's what I see as the additional layers.  First, in a very real
>sense, the IETF is in the room whenever IETF related issues are
>considered.  There is nearly complete information about the innermost
>workings of ISOC available to the IETF and IAB chairs.  There is close
>counsel and advice on any matter related to the IETF.  You, Harald, Fred
>and Lynn can probably flesh this out better than I can.  There is no
>distance and veil of separation between IETF and ISOC.  ISOC does not --
>and I don't think it could -- make a decision that is related to the
>IETF, much less adverse to the IETF, without close communication and
>coordination.
>
>Second, if there were some sort of persistent tension, the IETF would
>necessarily take that into consideration when appointing the next set of
>board members.  Thus, if something got out of hand, it wouldn't persist
>year after year without the IETF taking the natural step of sending
>appointees to the board with a strong brief to try to get the problem
>fixed.  As you say, this would represent a change in the IETF's current
>mode of selecting board members, but it would be entirely within the
>IETF's purview to do so.  No approval would be needed from ISOC.  Of
>course, if this were ever relevant, things would have gotten to a poor
>state, but that's the kind of situation we're discussing.
>
>When I said "the IETF already has a strong management role in ISOC," I
>didn't mean that ISOC matters are routed to the IETF as a whole for
>decisions.  That would be unwieldy and it would burden the IETF with
>details usually unrelated to the standards process.  But I do mean that
>IETF viewpoints and IETF active people are always present, and that all
>matters related to the IETF involve close coordination with IETF
>management.  And, as I said, if problems arise, the IETF has mulitple
>modes of access built into the current relationship.
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Leslie Daigle [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 6:09 PM
> > To: Steve Crocker
> > Cc: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)';
> > [e-mail]'.cnri.reston.va.us; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: Options for IETF administrative restructuring
> >
> >
> >
> > I'd like to provide one point of important clarification:
> > the ISOC trustees appointed by the IETF do *not* represent
> > the IETF. So, while I agree firmly that the IETF's
> > relationship to ISOC is closer than the IETF's relationship
> > to any other organization, I disagree strongly that "the
> > IETF" has "a strong management role in ISOC" as it stands today.
> >
> > The IETF, through the IAB (as outlined in RFC3677), selects
> > individuals to fill ISOC Board seats.  The IAB has
> > consistently sought individuals with management, leadership
> > and/or administrative backgrounds appropriate for helping
> > ISOC as a whole organization, to fill those seats.  We (the
> > IAB, the IETF) do not treat those trustees any differently
> > than any other trustees on the ISOC Board; there is no advice
> > given, no reporting sought.  The only time we (the IAB) have
> > sat down with that collection of trustees specifically was
> > when we were seeking input on whether or not there were
> > additional things we should have considered in our selection
> > process (that our original 3 appointees learned after we'd
> > dropped them in).
> >
> > I can't speak to whether the folks appointed by the IETF
> > *feel* some obligation to represent IETF perspectives, but
> > there is no formal expectation or mechanism for them to do so.
> >
> > While we *could* turn that into a representational
> > appointment, that would represent a change in the status quo,
> > probably would require different appointment procedures
> > within the IETF, and perhaps some additional reporting duties.
> >
> >
> > Leslie.
> >
> >
> > Steve Crocker wrote:
> > > Bert, et al.,
> > >
> > > Thanks for your note.  I too have watched the evolution of the
> > > relationship with CNRI for a long time.  I served on the IESG from
> > > 1989 to 1994 when Phill gross was the IETF chair, and I
> > served on the
> > > IAB for another two years.  I co-chaired the POISED working group
> > > which reorganized the relationship between the IAB and the IETF and
> > > instituted the nomcomm, so I empathize quite a lot with
> > your concerns.
> > > That said, let me suggest three things, the last of which is, in my
> > > view, the most important.
> > >
> > > 1. In my view, the relationship between the IETF and ISOC is not at
> > > all similar to the relationship between the IETF and CRNI.
> > The IETF
> > > already has a strong management role in ISOC.  The IETF has
> > seats on
> > > the ISOC board, it has complete visibility into the budget,
> > and other
> > > specific formal controls.  That is, it's not a distant, separated
> > > relationship, but one where the IETF is already deep inside.  To a
> > > great extent, the IETF has as much control over ISOC as it
> > would have
> > > over a new organization it might try to establish.  And
> > speaking for
> > > myself, if the IETF needs greater visibility and/or representation
> > > within ISOC, I'd support whatever changes in ISOC governance are
> > > needed.  ISOC was founded to be a home for the IETF and it has
> > > functioned in that role since its inception.  And a large
> > percentage
> > > of the ISOC members and board are people who have grown up in the
> > > IETF.
> > >
> > > 2. I have trouble understanding option C.  It's a lot of mechanism
> > > that doesn't have a clear purpose.  We can dig into the details as
> > > deeply as desired, but I truly believe it's a quagmire.
> > Some people
> > > who advocate it view it as merely a glitzier form of A or
> > B.  Others
> > > view it as a version of D dressed up so it doesn't seem quite so
> > > confrontational.  I think it creates a whole series of problems and
> > > doesn't provide any real protection.  If a real breach does develop
> > > between the IETF and ISOC in a way that doesn't get
> > addressed sensibly
> > > through the very strong structures and protections that are already
> > > built in, then the IETF can walk away and create another
> > legal home,
> > > develop its own source of funding, and take on the full
> > load of being
> > > a separate and independent organization.
> > >
> > > 3. As I understand it, the administrative restructuring effort was
> > > stimulated by problems with the support functions.  The
> > problems had
> > > reached the point where the IETF's work was not getting done.
> > > Discussions with the supporting organizations, particularly
> > > CNRI/Foretec, didn't resolve the problems, at least in part because
> > > the contractual and management relationship wasn't clear.
> > I believe
> > > there is now clear agreement that much cleaner management
> > and budget
> > > authority is required.  One way or another, there will be unified
> > > management in place to oversee the support functions.  That much is
> > > good.  What is not so good, in my opinion, is the lack of focus on
> > > what needs to be fixed in the support functions.  The IESG area
> > > directors are perhaps the most affected and have the most
> > knowledge in
> > > this regard, but I'm sure working group chairs and many others have
> > > much to say.  Irrespective of whether one chooses option A,
> > B, C or D
> > > as the framework, the real work will come in restructuring
> > the support
> > > functions and working out the details of who does what.  I've been
> > > surprised at how little discussion there's been along this
> > line.  If
> > > things were broken enough to bring the relationship with
> > the support
> > > functions to a head, then surely it's time to lay out what
> > needs to be
> > > fixed.
> > >
> > > What aspects of the IETF's operation hasn't been served properly?
> > > Some possibilities that come to mind are:
> > >
> > > O Turn around time in the Secretariat, IANA and/or RFC
> > Editor hasn't
> > > been fast enough.
> > >
> > > O Information flow hasn't been timely or accurate.
> > >
> > > O Coordination among the support functions and between the support
> > > functions and the IETF hasn't been satisfactory.
> > >
> > > O Automation has been weak and stovepiped.
> > >
> > > I can't speak authoritatively about these, and perhaps I've missed
> > > some important questions.  But it seems to me that this is where we
> > > need some attention with constructive suggestions on how to proceed.
> > >
> > > (I left out discussion of the meetings.  This is also
> > important, and
> > > there has been some specifics discussed on this list regarding
> > > meetings. This is good.)
> > >
> > >
> > > Steve
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>-----Original Message-----
> > >>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> > >>Behalf Of Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> > >>Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 6:07 PM
> > >>To: [e-mail]'.cnri.reston.va.us; [e-mail]
> > >>Subject: RE: Options for IETF administrative restructuring
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>Scott writes:
> > >>
> > >>... snip ...
> > >>
> > >>>I think that option C brings little useful to the table.  I fail to
> > >>>see that incorporating the organizer of the IETF admin functions
> > >>>solves any existing problem that is not better and more
> > >>
> > >>easily solved
> > >>
> > >>>by options A or B.  Option C mostly adds the complication
> > >>
> > >>and expense
> > >>
> > >>>of creating a corporation whose purpose almost no one
> > >>
> > >>outside of the
> > >>
> > >>>IETF, and I expect few inside the IETF, would be able to
> > >>
> > >>untangle from
> > >>
> > >>>the purpose of the ISOC.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>Scott, my personal view on this is that if we kust look at
> > >>TODAY, then
> > >>you are correct. And so today I could live with scenario A or
> > >>B (I think
> > >>I prefer some form of B in that case).
> > >>
> > >>However... in the very distant past, I am sure that the
> > >>relationship with CNRI was very good too. And I am sure that
> > >>at that time we were happy and that we assumed nothing bad
> > >>would happen (if we actually even though
> > >>of it). And one would think that if things were to get in a
> > shape or
> > >>situation that we (IETF community) no longer find acceptable,
> > >>then we would expect that we (or our leadership) takes action
> > >>or comes with
> > >>proposals for action. Oh well... not so easily. It drags on
> > for long.
> > >>
> > >>When I joined the IESG in 1998, I saw little if any problems
> > >>with the secretariat or CNRI. I did not know how meeting
> > >>revenues were being used
> > >>to support the secretariat and all that. I learned that our
> > >>IETF chair at
> > >>the time (together with you (Scott) if I recall correctly?)
> > >>were negotiating a contract with CNRI. The response that came
> > >>back was that it needed some more review on CNRI side and
> > >>things were not easy... and a year or so went by. The next
> > >>rounds we needed the contract more, because the finacial side
> > >>was not transparent and not reported in a timely fashion and not in
> > >>enough detail. But again there were all sorts of unclear
> > >>issues. And so we went on for 6+ years (yep I have been on
> > >>IESG that long). And in the meantime the working relationship
> > >>between IESG and Secretariat also suffered. A lot of that had
> > >>to do with increased workload, but also with the fact that we
> > >>did not have a good contract in place that documented what
> > >>the responsibilities and tasks were/are of secretariat and
> > >>how we (IESG and rest of community) interface/interact with
> > >>secretariat. Let alone that we (IESG/IETF) did not have
> > >>control over finances so we could set priorities on specific
> > >>pieces of secretarial work that needed improvement.
> > >>
> > >>Now the important lesson I learned here is that I think
> > >>initially there were good intentions and good relationships
> > >>between CNRI and IETF. But they degraded very slowly year
> > >>over year and we still have no contract or MoU or such in
> > >>place. And it had to become really bad (my preception) before
> > >>we (IETF/IESG/IAB) finally took action to investigate and
> > >>document our major concerns in RFC3716.
> > >>
> > >>In other words... things creep on you very slowly. And if you
> > >>things go well
> > >>for a long time and then start to deteriorate very slowly,
> > >>then it is tough
> > >>to stand up and cause trouble and REQUIRE/ORGANIZE change in
> > >>a commonly agreed manner. Specifically if one side is not
> > >>eager to move swiftly.
> > >>
> > >>Now... I assume and hope we will never get into such a
> > >>situation with ISOC. But I think that is what we (IETF) also
> > >>assumed/hoped many years ago with CNRI.
> > >>
> > >>If we were to go for option C, then in my personal view, it
> > >>would have the serious benefit that we are ALWAYS (from day
> > >>1) responsible to make sure things work well. And we need to
> > >>re-negotiate every so often if we want to keep the
> > >>relationships that we have or if we want to change them. So
> > >>in my view we would run far less risk to ever get in a
> > >>similar situation as where we are today. Yep... initially it
> > >>will cost us some more money and effort I suspect. But I
> > >>think it is worth the price.
> > >>
> > >>Note also, that I DO want the IETF to keep its curent
> > >>relation with ISOC and that I also DO want the new "IETF
> > >>secretarial support function" to have very strong relations
> > >>with ISOC. We can and should work that out and then document
> > >>it so we all know what the relationship is.
> > >>
> > >>But... this is just my personal view.
> > >>I hope it helps a constructive discussion.
> > >>
> > >>Bert
> > >>
> > >>_______________________________________________
> > >>Ietf mailing list
> > >>[e-mail]
> > >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Ietf mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> >
> > --
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > "Reality:
> >       Yours to discover."
> >                                  -- ThinkingCat
> > Leslie Daigle
> > [e-mail]
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ietf mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>_______________________________________________
>This message was passed through [e-mail], which 
>is a sublist of [e-mail]. Not all messages are passed. Decisions on 
>what to pass are made solely by IETF_CENSORED ML Administrator 
>([e-mail]).


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf