A different cut [was Re: Options for IETF administrative restructuring]

Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com> Fri, 03 September 2004 21:05 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 RAA14017; Fri, 3 Sep 2004 17:05:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C3LHz-0000ni-7z; Fri, 03 Sep 2004 17:08:07 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C3LBB-0001X1-Jw; Fri, 03 Sep 2004 17:01:05 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C3Kyz-0007tx-GZ for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Sep 2004 16:48:29 -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 QAA13329 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Sep 2004 16:48:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from cliffie.verisignlabs.com ([65.201.175.9] helo=mail.verisignlabs.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C3L1c-0000Vy-K4 for ietf@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Sep 2004 16:51:15 -0400
Received: from [10.131.244.198] ([::ffff:216.168.239.87]) (AUTH: LOGIN leslie) by mail.verisignlabs.com with esmtp; Fri, 03 Sep 2004 16:47:55 -0400 id 003A124B.4138D87B.000045B9
Message-ID: <4138D87B.5090302@thinkingcat.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 16:47:55 -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: 538aad3a3c4f01d8b6a6477ca4248793
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: A different cut [was Re: Options for IETF administrative restructuring]
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: f4c2cf0bccc868e4cc88dace71fb3f44
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Here's my *personal* perspective on reviewing the scenarios
Carl's laid out.  By my reading,

Scenario A says:  an existing organization, ISOC, will bear the
responsibility for the administrative support of the IETF, as
an extension of its existing commitment to the IETF.

Scenario B says:  Scenario A is a good start, but the IETF community
believes it should be more involved in the forces that shape its
destiny.  We (the engineering community) are willing and able to
stand up and take part in the responsibilities that go along with
those rights.  So, Scenario B proposes mechanisms to allow the
IETF community to be more fully involved in ISOC, on the assumption
that the administrative activity is actually carried out there.
The increased involvement over today is justified by the increased
(financial and work) activity within ISOC that is specific to
IETF administration.   The document outlines some proposals
for how that involvement might happen -- those would have to be
refined and reviewed with ISOC, if this is the general *direction*
the IETF community decided it wanted to go.

Scenario C says:  the IETF community is ready and willing to
undertake the responsibilities as well as the rights for managing
its administrative efforts, and further believes that it would
be more appropriately managed at arm's length from the rest of ISOC's
activities (including its role in the IETF standards process).

Scenario D says:  arm's length is not enough, the IETF financial
reality should be a completely independent organization which
fully undertakes to fund and support the IETF activity.  The
IETF community is now completely involved in (aka responsible for)
ensuring all aspects of its continued and long term financial
viability.


Again -- that's my personal read on it. IMO, it would be helpful
at this point to have some discussion about what level of
involvement the IETF community feels it wants or needs at this juncture.


Leslie.

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality:
      Yours to discover."
                                 -- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
leslie@thinkingcat.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------


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