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
- A different cut [was Re: Options for IETF adminis… Leslie Daigle