Subject: AdminRest: an attempt at some principles

From: [email-masked] (scott bradner)
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 09:01:03 -0500 (EST)

Since I and a number of other posters have been asking that the
AdminRest document move up a step or two and articulate the
basic principles that we want the IETF administrative functions 
to operate under rather than continue to focus on teh operational
details I've tried to put together a set of such principles to
prime discussion

in these principles I have not directly addressed the feeling of some
people that the IETF needs to be able to "blow the bolts" (as I put it 
a while back) with the ISOC quickly if things "go bad" in some way.  I
have not done so not because I want to dismiss or ignore such feelings
but because I have not figured out a way to express it if I take into
account the fact that the IETF cannot actually go it alone anytime soon
because it does not have the cash flow from meeting fees that would
support an independent IETF - suggestions welcomed

===============
The following is a mixture of postings from many people (with some of my
own ideas tossed in)

1/ The IETF intends to establish a structure (the IETF Administrative
Support Activity (IASA)) to get IETF administrative functions managed
appropriately, according to good administrative, fiscal, and management
principles.  The IASA includes an IETF Administrative Director (IAD) and
an IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC).  The IASA will be
housed within the Internet Society (ISOC).

2/ The IAD, IAOC and the ISOC shall not have any authority over the IETF
standards development activities.

3/ The IAD and IAOC, with advice from the ISOC President/CEO and staff,
will develop an annual budget for the IASA.  The budget must clearly
identify all expected direct and indirect expenditures related to the
IASA.  The ISOC, through its normal procedures, will evaluate and adopt
the IASA budget as part of the ISOC's own budget process and commit to
ensuring funds to support the approved budget.   

5/ The responsibility for the evaluation, review and negotiation of
contracts and other IETF administrative and support agreements and other
expenditures of funds under the IASA shall rest with the IAD, operating
in accordance with policies and procedures set by the IAOC and
consistent with ISOC operating policies.

6/ There shall be a detailed public accounting to separately identify
all funds available to and all expenditures relating to the IETF and to
the IASA including any donations (of funds or in-kind) received by the
ISOC for IETF-related activities.  In-kind donations shall only be
accepted at the direction of the IAD and IAOC.

7/ The right to use any intellectual property rights created by any
IASA-related or IETF activity may not be withheld by the ISOC from the IETF.

8/ The IASA should establish a target for a reserve fund to cover normal
operating expenses and meeting expenses in accordance with prudent
planning, and ISOC should work with the IASA to build up and maintain
the reserve.

[note: As an initial estimate, the desired reserve should cover six
months of non-meeting operational expenses plus twice the recent average
for meeting contract guarantees, but this is a matter for determination
by the IAOC and ISOC and is not set specifically in this BCP.)

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

---

From: Carl Malamud <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 07:24:30 -0800 (PST)

> support an independent IETF - suggestions welcomed

How about:

<section title="Community Consensus and Grant of Authority">
  <t>
    The IETF is a consensus-based group and authority to act on behalf
    of the community is an act that requires a high degree of consensus
    and the continued consent of the community
    After a careful process of deliberation, there is a broad-based
    community consensus to house the IETF Administrative &amp; Support
    Activities (IASA) within the Internet Society, which is reflected
    in this Best Current Practice (BCP) RFC.</t>
  <t>
    Termination and change.  Any change to this agreement shall require
    a similar level of community consensus and deliberation and shall
    be reflected by a subsequent Best Current Practice (BCP) RFC.
  </t>  
</section>

A termination clause is standard in any agreement and this one simply
says "if you want to change this, get another bcp through the process."
This doesn't address the "and we want to take our money with us" issue,
but I believe that could be addressed elsewhere or not addressed at
all.  Either way works for me.

> standards development activities.

That's almost true, but you probably need to address that the fact that
ISOC does play an important role in the standards process, a role
that is not changed by this document.

> IASA-related or IETF activity may not be withheld by the ISOC from the IETF.

how about "withheld or limited in any way"?

Regards,

Carl

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: 28 Nov 2004 18:10:57 +0000

>     of the community is an act that requires a high degree of consensus

add "and transparency" here plz.

> all.  Either way works for me.

any way you can work a "sunshine law" in will work for me.  i'm
concerned about the ways in which ietf has acted "in my name" WITHOUT my
consent or knowledge.  i know from private responses to my previous
threads on that topic that i'm not alone, not even rare, in having that
concern.  if a small band of "us" wishes to act in a leadership
capacity, take responsibility for forward progress, choose and manage an
administrator, and represent "our" position in discussions with
meatspace government, then by i insist upon knowing more about "their"
deliberations and decisions and actions than has ever been made public
in the history of "the ietf".  we can start by making "transparency" a
first class object, right up there with "consensus" -- even though by
most definitions you cannot have consensus without transparency, in ietf
we have absolutely separated them and so we have to explicitly reinstate
one.
-- 
Paul Vixie

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 13:36:37 -0500

Hi Paul,

At 6:10 PM +0000 11/28/04, Paul Vixie wrote:
>concern.

An earlier comment from Brian Carpenter, to which several people 
agreed, indicated that we should consider the need for an IETF 
"sunshine law" separately from the IASA structure.

In my copious free time, I am in the process of writing a proposed 
"sunshine law" BCP based loosely on the Missouri Sunshine Law, which 
is (IMO) the best model that I have found  (where "best" == short, 
effective, reasonable exceptions) that I've found.  I hope to have 
something to circulate within the next few weeks, but I'd be happy to 
see someone else propose one sooner... :-)

>...if a small band of "us" wishes to act in a leadership

This is why I've been harping on the concept of "informed consensus" 
and banging on the fact that it is the IESG's job to help the 
community reach _informed_ consensus on these topics, which means 
that it is our responsibility to keep the community well-enough 
informed to reach meaningful consensus.

Margaret

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 18:53:40 +0000

> An earlier comment from Brian Carpenter, to which several people agreed,
> indicated that we should consider the need for an IETF "sunshine law"
> separately from the IASA structure.

i didn't agree but i didn't want to use everybody's time arguing about it,
and i still don't.  but it turns out that that's a different fishkettle.

all i'm asking for at the moment is that "transparency" be mentioned
whenever "consensus" is mentioned.  what kind of transparency, or what
kind of consensus, we mean can be defined elsewhere.  changing consent
to informed consent might also be a good idea but is inadequate alone --
we talk a lot about "consensus" (rough, after clark et al), and we have
to start talking about "transparency" just as often.

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 14:03:44 -0500

>to start talking about "transparency" just as often.

I have no objection to mentioning transparency as a key attribute of 
the IASA structure.

Margaret