Transition

[Carl Malamud <[e-mail]>]

Steve and I have been giving a lot of thought to the question of
transition if our plan is adopted.  Let me stress that this note
is *only* relevant if there appears to be a consensus and we are
not assuming that consensus exists: we are simply trying to answer
some nagging questions about implementation.

If there appears to be a consensus, we'd like to propose the
following as a way to handle transition:

	1) the IETF achieves consensus on the structural
	   outline of the new system (the issues discussed in our 
	   draft as modified by discussion)

	2) the IETF achieves consensus on a slate of names for
	   the Process Board and for a slate of names for the Chair
	   of the Technical Task Force

Consensus for points 1) and 2) are achieved at three points: the
working group, the IETF plenary, and in a "last call" period on
the network.

	3) the new system and the names for the Process Board are
	   presented to the ISOC trustees at their meeting

	4) assuming the trustees approve without major changes,
	   the Process Board comes into being and ratifies/selects
	   a Chair of the TTF.

At this point, the IAB and IESG would continue to function as before.
The Process Board and the Chair of the TTF would be responsible for
supervising the transition of the IAB and the IESG into a Technical
Board.  The reason for picking a Chair of the TTF up front is that this
is really a crucial leadership position and it makes sense for that
person to be in place during the transition period.

Note that we are not giving the full details of the transition plan
(e.g., which areas exist, the exact composition of the Technical Board,
when and how the transition of secretariat functions occur) as we
believe that is a question that the people who are saddled with the
responsibility must address.  For the same reason, we don't give full
details of how an area gets managed because we think that this is a
question that those who manage the areas and the TTF must address.

*If* there is consensus on the plan in November and *if* a consensus
can be reached on a slate for the Process Board and *if* the trustees
can agree that this is the way to go, then the transition period would
begin in January, 1993.  Under that scenario, names for the Technical
Board and a transition would come out of the February IETF and the
Technical Board and other components would be operational at the conclusion
of the February IETF.

We believe it is crucial that this move ahead only under consensus.  If
there are other plans advanced, serious disagreement with pieces of our
plan, or a failure to achieve consensus on a slate of names, then it is
essential that we slip the schedule.  On the other hand, we understand
the potential gridlock that might occur in a transition period and are
anxious to propose steps that make that transition as smooth as possible.

Comments are welcome.

Carl