Upcoming: further thoughts on where from here
Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com> Mon, 20 September 2004 13:45 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 JAA02748; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 09:45:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C9OZr-0006Hi-0w; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 09:51:35 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C9OGG-0006Y7-JM; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 09:31:20 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C9OBe-0005sA-Ln for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 09:26:34 -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 JAA01488 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 09:26:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from zak.ecotroph.net ([216.93.164.123]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C9OHo-0005wF-RF for ietf@ietf.org; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 09:32:57 -0400
Received: from [192.168.0.235] ([::ffff:69.170.18.186]) (AUTH: PLAIN leslie, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by zak.ecotroph.net with esmtp; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 09:26:30 -0400 id 001B7A93.414EDA87.00004319
Message-ID: <414EDAA2.9080205@thinkingcat.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 09:26:58 -0400
From: Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 92df29fa99cf13e554b84c8374345c17
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Subject: Upcoming: further thoughts on where from here
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: 00e94c813bef7832af255170dca19e36
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Folks, 10 days ago, some members of the IAB and IESG started to review the IETF discussion on the adminrest subject, attempting to determine what recommendations to draw, or how to elicit more discussion to lead to being able to provide some recommendations for moving forward. It seemed like the 2 paths that were seriously under consideration by the community were: . establishing a separate corporate entity for the administrative function, with continued strong relations with and funding from ISOC (this is basically Scenario C from Carl's document, with some adjustments). . carrying the administrative function out within ISOC itself, as an activity that was formalized by IETF process and largely overseen by IETF-accountable appointees. This has aspects of Scenarios A and B from Carl's document, but differs in that it doesn't make any suggestion of change to the ISOC structure, while it attempts to define and encapsulate the IETF administrative activity. This is referred to as Scenario O, below. It seemed that the best way to stimulate further discussion on the IETF mailing list about these paths was to provide a more fleshed out view of how they each might be accomplished. Accordingly, some people volunteered to write down some text for each, drawing on and extending Carl's documents. The outcome of that writing exercise will be circulated here later today -- i.e., a note describing a possible implementation of Scenario C in more detail, and a separate note describing the derived scenario (dubbed "Scenario O"). One thing that is important to note about these notes is that there is a lot of commonality in their structure, and a number of places where the text could have been copied from one to the other. For example, both have some form of oversight board or committee. The details as written, however, *do* differ between the notes. This is because the contexts are slightly different for the 2 scenarios, and because the differences amount to details we can debate and fix if we pick one of these to move forward with. I.e., "who is a voting member of the oversight group" should not be a deciding factor in whether you think the revised Scenario C is better than Scenario O, or vice versa. The IAB and IESG have not discussed these extensively, but have helped to try and get better and clarified documentation of each of those Scenarios. The IESG and IAB are now reviewing them in detail. We are also following your discussions/comments very carefully, and based on that they will evaluate to try and come to a recommendation. So we are eagerly awaiting your thoughts and inputs on whether either of these seems to be a viable path or what further work needs to be done. Leslie. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- "Reality: Yours to discover." -- ThinkingCat Leslie Daigle leslie@thinkingcat.com ------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Upcoming: further thoughts on where from here Leslie Daigle
- Scenario O Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on wher… Leslie Daigle
- Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on where from here Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on where from here Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on where from here Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on where from here John C Klensin
- Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on where from here Scott W Brim
- Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on where from here Margaret Wasserman
- Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on where from here Ted Hardie
- Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on where from here Erik Huizer
- Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on where from here scott bradner
- Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on where from here scott bradner
- Scenario O (was: Re: Upcoming: further thoughts o… John C Klensin
- Scenario C prerequisites (Re: Upcoming: further t… Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Tax excemption (Re: Scenario O (was: Re: Upcoming… Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: Scenario O Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Scenario C prerequisites (Re: Upcoming: furth… John C Klensin
- Re: Scenario C prerequisites (Re: Upcoming: furth… Jeffrey Hutzelman
- Re: Scenario C prerequisites (Re: Upcoming: furth… Karl Auerbach
- Re: Scenario O Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on … Sam Hartman
- Re: Scenario C prerequisites (Re: Upcoming: furth… Gene Gaines
- Re: Scenario C prerequisites (Re: Upcoming: furth… Karl Auerbach
- Re: Scenario C prerequisites (Re: Upcoming: furth… Gene Gaines
- Re: Scenario C prerequisites (Re: Upcoming: furth… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Scenario O Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on … Tony Hain
- Re: Scenario O Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on … Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Scenario O Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on … Margaret Wasserman
- Re: Scenario O Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on … Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on where from here Kai Henningsen
- Scenario C (was: Scenario O) Kai Henningsen
- RE: Scenario O Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on … Christian de Larrinaga
- Re: Scenario C prerequisites (Re: Upcoming: furth… Kai Henningsen
- Re: Scenario C prerequisites (Re: Upcoming: furth… Gene Gaines