Re: Transition

[Stephen D Crocker <[e-mail]>]

Stef,

You raise an interesting point, but I think there are two very
different questions on the table.  The one that caused the formation
of the POISED group had to do with the way the IAB, IESG and IAB
interact.  The IPv7 sequence of events had nothing at all to do with
the existence of the ISOC.  And to first order, the existence of the
ISOC has little to do with fixing the internal problems of the IAB,
IESG and IETF.

As a separate matter, it's been argued -- chiefly, but not exclusively
by Vint -- that the Internet standards process needs a corporate home.
The ISOC has been presented to us as the solution to that problem.
Had that been the only intended role of the ISOC, I suspect we would
have heard a great more about the formation of the ISOC and had a
great deal more to say about the ISOC.  As it was, the ISOC was
created outside of the IETF, although there was significant
interaction with the IAB.  Considering that the IETF was considered to
be a task force created and controlled by the IAB, I suppose that
model wasn't entirely inappropriate.

Irrespective of the etiquette, the intent was that the ISOC would not
perturb the existing organization or interfere in its operation.  That
is, to the extent that the IAB, IESG and IETF -- and the IRTF too --
represented a fully functioning system, the ISOC fully intended to
accept it as is.  In a certain sense, the ISOC might have reason to be
chagrined: it thought it had taken on a habitable house, and now it
finds it the roof needs serious maintenance.

Since you've raised the question of whether the ISOC is acceptable to
us, it seems to the sequence of questions should thus be:

o Do we need anything like an ISOC?  I.e. do we need a corproate home
  for the IETF?  (I accept the premise that we do, but opinions may
  vary.)

o Assuming we need one, what characteristics do we want it to have?

o Since it's better to use what's been built instead of throwing it
  away, let's determine whether the ISOC fails to meet our needs, and
  if so, in which ways

o If the answer to the last question is not null, are the defects
  fixable.

So far as I can tell, there aren't any defects in the ISOC because
there's not much contact.  Sounds ok to me.

And as best I can tell, the ISOC trustees have no particular axe to
grind.  If we can tell them what makes sense to us, there's a
reasonable chance it'll happen.


Let me reiterate that to me your message shifts ground from the
original POISED concern to an entirely new issue.  There's nothing
wrong with the new question, but it's obligatory that we come to
closure on the first question, viz how we're to be organized and
select our leaders.  I don't mind handling two questions in parallel,
but we can't let the first question remain unresolved.


Cheers.


Steve