Re: Options for IETF administrative restructuring

[[e-mail] (scott bradner)]

For what it's worth I feel about the same way that Brian does about the
restructuring options.

I think that both options A & B make sense, could be done quickly and
would be a positive step in regularizing the relationship of the IETF
to its admin functions.  Both options provide a way for the IETF 
"management" to establish clear  controls over and take responsibility
for the IETF admin functions. 

I do think that it needs to be very clear in any arrangement with the
ISOC that the IETF Chair speaks for the IETF and can officially sign 
documents in the name of the IETF but I do not see any problems 
establishing that clarity.  (Note that no one, including the IETF 
Chair, can bind the IETF to do anything that the IETF has not, 
through its consensus processes, agreed to do.)

I think that option D makes no sense at all - it would create a very 
confused organizational structure under which the IETF would 
suddenly be responsible for a lot of things far removed from the
development of Internet standards -- in my opinion,  implementing
option D would go a long way to killing the IETF or at the very 
least stopping most relevant standards work for a long time.

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.  

In sum, the ISOC is there, it was created in large part to support the 
IETF and has been doing so in various ways for many years.  (See Carl's
ID for information on this support for the past few years.)  I have 
not seen any argument raised that would lead me to conclude that the 
ISOC has not been doing what the IETF has wanted to date nor would 
lead me to conclude that there is any reason to believe that it 
would suddenly change its tune in the future (especially considering 
the presence of IETF-appointed ISOC board members)

Some people, in private, have mentioned that they feel the need to
be able to "blow the bolts" with the ISOC if, in the future, the 
ISOC board changes its priorities to such an extent that the ISOC 
no longer provides the support that the IETF needs or in some other 
way goes wacko.  I do not see that as a strong reason to install 
explosive bolts at this point - I expect that the IETF of the future 
can figure out what to do if such a situation arises.

disclaimer: I have some of the same history as Brian does.  I was 
an elected trustee of the ISOC for two terms, I also was the ISOC
VP for Standards from the time the position was created until 
it was dissolved (at my suggestion) since all major organizations
that I know of now recognize the IETF and there was no longer a 
need to have some sort of corporate entity to stand in for the IETF.
I am also currently the secretary to the ISOC board. But that
disclosed, my ties to the IETF is far more extensive and longer 
lasting.  In any case, the above is my own opinion and I did not 
coordinate it with the ISOC (or with Harvard).

(note that "wacko" as used above is not a technical term)



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