Re: I-D ACTION:draft-malamud-consultant-report-00.txt

Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com> Mon, 30 August 2004 08:51 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA02493; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 04:51:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C1huM-00063g-3l; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 04:52:58 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C1hr3-00014g-HD; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 04:49:33 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C1hpf-00084N-SN for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 04:48:07 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA02377 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 04:48:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mtagate1.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.150]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C1hrM-00060I-BG for ietf@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 04:49:55 -0400
Received: from d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.49]) by mtagate1.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i7U8lWfQ144780 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 08:47:32 GMT
Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id i7U8lV0l077670 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 10:47:32 +0200
Received: from zurich.ibm.com (dyn-9-13-126-72.ge.ch.ibm.com [9.13.126.72]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA67212 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 10:47:31 +0200
Message-ID: <4132E99E.90807@zurich.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 10:47:26 +0200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
Organization: IBM
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113
X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <200408261934.PAA00823@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <200408261934.PAA00823@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-malamud-consultant-report-00.txt
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I strongly support the basic proposal to put the IETF's administration
on a sound and well understood basis, with the transparency that
Carl's draft recommends. So I fundamentally support the thrust of
Section 3, Recommendations for Restructuring the Administrative
Framework. I have some doubts whether all the functions described
in Appendix F are really separable, but I regard that as a question
for the future Administrative Director in any case.

As for the major options suggested in Section 4, my preference is
very clearly for Scenario A, with a commitment to progressively
put in place some or all of the mechanisms outlined for Scenario B.
I think that is the best way to make rapid progress.

I simply can't see any need to spend time and money to create
an additional non-profit organization when we have a perfectly
good one in the shape of the ISOC. Scenario C gives us the
benefits of Scenario B plus extra overhead and complexity;
Scenario D gives us even more overhead, no guarantee of the
benefits, and a major risk of funding difficulties.

In the context of scenarios A and B, I have a small substantive
comment on Section 3.1:

>    Evaluation of applicants might consist of a search committee
>    appointed by the IETF Chair.  The committee would conduct an initial
>    review of applications, possibly solicit additional applications, and
>    present a short-list for further consideration.  This short list of
>    applicants could be reviewed by the IESG and IAB, possibly with
>    further interviews.  The IESG and/or IAB should specify this
>    procedure more fully before beginning the search.

If the Admin Director is to be legally an ISOC employee, the
ISOC CEO would also need to be included in the procedure.

Finally, a reminder that I've served on the IAB and on the ISOC Board,
and contributed to RFC 3716, all of which may have coloured my opinions.

    Brian Carpenter

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf