Re: Progress report......
--On Tuesday, 25 January, 2005 14:46 +0100 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Despite the fact that the number of messages on the list
> doesn't seem to be decreasing, I believe we are in fact making
> progress.
>...
Harald (and Leslie),
This is very encouraging. But there is a small, but IMO
critical, collection of subjects on which I had hoped we would
see some spontaneous clarification or at least that someone else
would notice and ask. I note that Bob Kahn's recent note
raises, in a different form, some of the questions raised below.
Since this note was mostly written before his appeared on the
list, and his note deserves careful study, I have not tried to
modify the notes and questions below to reflect his comments. I
do observe, however, that his note seems to suggest that the IPR
and ISOC involvement issues are even more murky than they
appeared to be when I drafted the text and questions that follow.
It seems to me that the very essence of the plan that the BCP
documents is rooted in:
* A very clear process, with opportunities for community
comment, on the general terms and conditions of any
outsourcing arrangements, or, if the relevant tasks are
to be performed internally, equivalent discussion and
documentation. It is, of course, important to strike
the balance between those considerations and the ability
of the IAD and IAOC to negotiate and approve contracts,
but the draft seems about right in that area.
* An IAD who has been involved in RFP-writing and
contract negotiation and who is satisfied that he or she
can manage the relevant activities to the degree needed
to meet community expectations.That IAD is to be
managed by an IAOC which has oversight responsibility in
those areas, and review and approval rights and
responsibility over those RFPs and contracts. It is our
intention that both be accountable to the IETF community
for getting tasks performed, which implies that the need
to have the tools (contractual and otherwise) needed to
perform that work.
Modulo some details that seem to be getting filled in,
and some others that we can adjust as we go along if
needed, I think the draft is about right in this area.
If my memory is correct, the community very specifically did not
give the transition team the authority to write and issue
final/binding RFPs, to make the final IAD hiring decision, or to
approve any long-term contracts or other agreements, precisely
to preserve the clean set of relationships outlined above. In
addition, it seems to me that another key goal is to have...
* An orderly, predictable, and non-problematic situation
with regard to IETF rights to all software, databases,
documents, records, names, domains, web pages, and other
materials that might be considered as "intellectual
property", at least going forward. Again, I think the
draft pretty much covers what we need.
However, Leslie posted a note last Friday on behalf of the IASA
Transition Team ("IASA Transition Team update on Secretariat
2005") that indicated that that negotiations were underway
between CNRI and Neustar to sell Foretec to the latter. I have
no opinion about whether that is a good idea or not. It may be
strictly an issue between those two companies. However, I am
extremely unclear about where that plan leaves the provisions
that so many of us have put so much time into working out the
details and refinements for the draft BCP.I don't
necessarily object to the deal and the questions below should be
taken just as questions, with no particular bias about the
answers or the conclusions to be drawn from them. But I think
it is important that the community have answers to these sorts
of questions before we sign off on the BCP. Indeed, since many
people have noted that, regardless of what is in the BCP, we
will almost certainly need to revise it in a year or so after
experience accumulates, I have to wonder whether, if the
proposed deal with Neustar preempts any of the key goals or
methods posited by the BCP, whether it would make sense to
approve a much-abbreviated version now, post -06 only as an
Internet-Draft, and come back to it in a year or so after we
have that experience.
In particular, Leslie's note raises the following questions for
me.
If others have other questions, I think this is the right time
to identify them.
(1) The note indicates that "the Transition Team is favorably
inclined to consider a proposal from NeuStar for continuing
Secretariat services...". Does that language imply that the
Transition Team believes that it has the authority to accept
such a proposal, without waiting for the IAD and IAOC to be in
place?
(2) During the brief, and (I believe necessarily) very indirect,
discussion of this plan at
Re: Progress report......
John, attempting to take some higher-level process issues first, before answering questions in detail: The question Neustar asked the transition team could be roughly represented as "If we make this deal with CNRI, will the IETF community think that we tried to help, or be mad at us for interfering?". It was obvious to us, as the transition team, that we could not answer that definitely - we have no power to decide on behalf of the community. But after listening to what Neustar had to say, we were able to say: - We will *share* with the community our opinion that this effort could help achieve a transition with less conflict and uncertainty than going straight from a CNRI-provided secretariat to an open RFP process would. - We will *recommend* to the to-be-established IASA and IAOC that if this deal happens, they will negotiate in good faith with Neustar on a contract for these services. I believe both of these actions are entirely within the remit of the transition team. We do have something of a timing problem here - if we want our IAD to negotiate a contract, we cannot sign a contract before we have an IAD; we cannot hire the IAD before we have an IASA to do the hiring; we cannot establish an IASA before we have a BCP; we cannot approve a BCP before the text stands still. But this event is occuring now - Neustar and CNRI are saying that it would be an advantage in practical terms to have this deal concluded before the March IETF. It would be very strange if we were so caught up in the formalities of IASA establishment that nobody was able to talk to them, look at what they are offering, and say "this appears to be helpful, thank you for trying". I think that's a good use of the transition team. Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Progress report......
Harald, I think this is all to the good. Several specific comments below. --On Wednesday, 26 January, 2005 09:29 +0100 Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > John, > > attempting to take some higher-level process issues first, > before answering questions in detail: > > The question Neustar asked the transition team could be > roughly represented as "If we make this deal with CNRI, will > the IETF community think that we tried to help, or be mad at > us for interfering?". > > It was obvious to us, as the transition team, that we could > not answer that definitely - we have no power to decide on > behalf of the community. But after listening to what Neustar > had to say, we were able to say: > > - We will *share* with the community our opinion that this > effort could help achieve a transition with less conflict and > uncertainty than going straight from a CNRI-provided > secretariat to an open RFP process would. Can you explain (if you have not already done so in your longer note) why you think this helps if the issues associated with CNRI-claimed IPR and agreements with ISOC that prevent lodging certain IETF administrative and support functions under an ISOC umbrella remain unresolved? It seems to me that those issues are the clear loci of potential "conflict and uncertainty". If this intermediate transition does not address them, is it of significant help compared with the potential simplicity of a one-step process? > - We will *recommend* to the to-be-established IASA and IAOC > that if this deal happens, they will negotiate in good faith > with Neustar on a contract for these services. See my earlier comments, responding to Brian, about the BCP draft and sole-source, unsolicited, proposals. > I believe both of these actions are entirely within the remit > of the transition team. Yes. Certainly the transition team can inform the community and make any recommendations it finds appropriate. > We do have something of a timing problem here - if we want our > IAD to negotiate a contract, we cannot sign a contract before > we have an IAD; we cannot hire the IAD before we have an IASA > to do the hiring; we cannot establish an IASA before we have a > BCP; we cannot approve a BCP before the text stands still. Yes, and I believe the community understood that issue when consensus was reached on the transition team not being an interim IAOC. > But this event is occuring now - Neustar and CNRI are saying > that it would be an advantage in practical terms to have this > deal concluded before the March IETF. It would be very strange > if we were so caught up in the formalities of IASA > establishment that nobody was able to talk to them, look at > what they are offering, and say "this appears to be helpful, > thank you for trying". Harald, while I am not arguing against this idea -- just attempting to understand its ramifications, context, and the problems it does or does not solve --I suggest that the two do not have anything to do with each other. In the strange world in which we have been living for the last several years, and in which we live today, the IETF's relationship with the secretariat (including mailing list and meeting planning functions -- see Scott's note) is informal and with a legal entity called "Foretec". While we might wish it otherwise, the question of whether Foretec is a subsidiary of CNRI, of Neustar, of some yet-to-be-created entity, or is completely independent is not a subject on which the IETF gets a vote. As we have seen, the IETF doesn't get a vote on who Foretec employs and in what positions, either.So, if the ownership of Foretec changes before March, I don't think we formally care... at least as long as Bob Kahn keeps his personal commitment to continue to keep the current secretariat model in operation and working well until satisfactory other arrangements are made, and I have every confidence that he will keep that commitment. Now, by contrast and purely hypothetically, if Neustar comes to the IETF and says "we are willing to make this deal with CNRI if and only if the IETF will guarantee us some number of years to operate the secretariat under the current terms that IETF has with CRNI/Foretec", then IETF acquires some standing to respond and some options for doing so. Those options include saying "this seems like a fine idea in principle, and we will commend you to the IASA for your helpful intentions, but we can't make any time commitments past the date that the IAOC opens up competition on an RFP, a competition in which you are free to engage. However, if the terms and conditions of the current relationship with Foretec were acceptable to us long-term, we would not have initiated the Admin Reorganization process, which you, as participants in the community, presumably know perfectly well". > I think that's a good use of the transition team. As long as the transition team doesn't start making up the rules as it goes along, or take
Re: Progress report......
John, just one comment: --On 26. januar 2005 10:55 -0500 John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: However, if the terms and conditions of the current relationship with Foretec were acceptable to us long-term, we would not have initiated the Admin Reorganization process, which you, as participants in the community, presumably know perfectly well I believe (and have told Bob Kahn that too) that if the Foretec stuff had been working perfectly, we would STILL do the reorganization. In fact, I believe that if it had been a fully functional working relationship with nobody seeing an advantage to the current undefined state of relationships, the reorganization would have happened long before I took on the job as IETF chair. As you known, having been part of the effort to take steps in the same direction Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Progress report......
on re-reading this, I think John and I are saying the same thing. I missed that in my earlier read. Serves me for replying too early in the morning :-( --On torsdag, januar 27, 2005 09:07:11 +0100 Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: John, just one comment: --On 26. januar 2005 10:55 -0500 John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: However, if the terms and conditions of the current relationship with Foretec were acceptable to us long-term, we would not have initiated the Admin Reorganization process, which you, as participants in the community, presumably know perfectly well I believe (and have told Bob Kahn that too) that if the Foretec stuff had been working perfectly, we would STILL do the reorganization. In fact, I believe that if it had been a fully functional working relationship with nobody seeing an advantage to the current undefined state of relationships, the reorganization would have happened long before I took on the job as IETF chair. As you known, having been part of the effort to take steps in the same direction Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Progress report......
--On Thursday, 27 January, 2005 09:07 +0100 Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > John, > just one comment: > > --On 26. januar 2005 10:55 -0500 John C Klensin > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> However, if the terms and conditions of the current >> relationship with Foretec were acceptable to us long-term, we >> would not have initiated the Admin Reorganization process, >> which you, as participants in the community, presumably know >> perfectly well > > I believe (and have told Bob Kahn that too) that if the > Foretec stuff had been working perfectly, we would STILL do > the reorganization. > In fact, I believe that if it had been a fully functional > working relationship with nobody seeing an advantage to the > current undefined state of relationships, the reorganization > would have happened long before I took on the job as IETF > chair. > As you known, having been part of the effort to take steps in > the same direction Well, not exactly. Yes, I have believed for many years that it would serve the IETF well to have a mutually-acceptable written agreement with CNRI (or Foretec) that clarified a number of issues about secretariat management, finances, the authority locus of a number of decisions, and the questions associated with IPR. If such an agreement had been concluded six or eight years ago, and worked well, I think we would still have eventually evolved toward some sort of administrative reorganization, if only to consolidate the income and expenditure streams so that they could be looked at as a complete picture. But this particular reorg process has been characterized by a crisis mentality and a sense of "got to get it done quickly even if it means pushing our procedural boundaries really hard" urgency. That would probably not have been necessary in the presence of a smoothly-functioning secretariat working under a clear and mutually acceptable agreement about responsibilities and authority. That sense of urgency and the associated short deadlines have consumed a good deal of community energy that, IMO, would have been better spent on production of high-quality standards. In general, neither crisis mentalities nor procedural shortcuts lead to carefully thought out and well-reasoned results (I think this process has done amazingly well despite that impediment). Conversely, I wish we were able to focus the same level of attention and expedited handling on WG-based standards and other documents. regards, john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Progress report......
--On Thursday, 27 January, 2005 10:51 +0100 Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > on re-reading this, I think John and I are saying the same > thing. I missed that in my earlier read. Serves me for > replying too early in the morning :-( Even earlier in the morning here :-( But, yes, I think we are largely in agreement, inevitable small differences in perspective notwithstanding. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Progress report......
--On 27. januar 2005 04:57 -0500 John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: But this particular reorg process has been characterized by a crisis mentality and a sense of "got to get it done quickly even if it means pushing our procedural boundaries really hard" urgency. That would probably not have been necessary in the presence of a smoothly-functioning secretariat working under a clear and mutually acceptable agreement about responsibilities and authority. I agree. That sense of urgency and the associated short deadlines have consumed a good deal of community energy that, IMO, would have been better spent on production of high-quality standards. In general, neither crisis mentalities nor procedural shortcuts lead to carefully thought out and well-reasoned results (I think this process has done amazingly well despite that impediment). Another reason for pushing for a finish has been the realization that this group, like all IETF groups, IS capable of discussing issues forever, and that we cannot get our energy back until we finish this one. Conversely, I wish we were able to focus the same level of attention and expedited handling on WG-based standards and other documents. Yes, and I believe that to some degree, we are. I am quite happy that the IESG has been able to "keep its nose to the grindstone" and push out almost one document approval per day over the same period as this discussion has been going on.. (15 document approvals and 25 protocol actions since December 6, according to my ietf-announce logs - including the resolution of a few thorny issues of long standing). But it will be good to get it over with. Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Progressing Re: Progress report......
John C Klensin wrote: [many things, including] (1) The note indicates that "the Transition Team is favorably inclined to consider a proposal from NeuStar for continuing Secretariat services...". Does that language imply that the Transition Team believes that it has the authority to accept such a proposal, without waiting for the IAD and IAOC to be in place? I simply observe that unless we stop word-smithing and get some form of the BCP on the books really soon, this question will be overtaken by events. If there is no IAOC in place, but a final proposal with deadline arrives from NeuStar, somebody will have to answer it - either the IETF Chair du jour, or the transition team. So despite the seriousness of the issues you raise and those implied by Bob Kahn's message, I would very strongly favour declaring the BCP "good enough for now" as soon as we see the -05 version. Some of the issues cannot be resolved and documented at this time, IMHO. (In superficial response to Bob's note, it seems to me that the draft BCP gives IASA the duty to handle the relevant IPR issues for the IETF and that is all we absolutely need at this time.) Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Progressing Re: Progress report......
--On Wednesday, 26 January, 2005 11:38 +0100 Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > John C Klensin wrote: > > [many things, including] > >> (1) The note indicates that "the Transition Team is favorably >> inclined to consider a proposal from NeuStar for continuing >> Secretariat services...". Does that language imply that the >> Transition Team believes that it has the authority to accept >> such a proposal, without waiting for the IAD and IAOC to be in >> place? > > I simply observe that unless we stop word-smithing and get some > form of the BCP on the books really soon, this question will be > overtaken by events. If there is no IAOC in place, but a final > proposal with deadline arrives from NeuStar, somebody will have > to answer it - either the IETF Chair du jour, or the transition > team. > > So despite the seriousness of the issues you raise and those > implied by Bob Kahn's message, I would very strongly favour > declaring the BCP "good enough for now" as soon as we see > the -05 version. Some of the issues cannot be resolved and > documented at this time, IMHO. Brian, Let me suggest a different (but admittedly paranoid) way of looking at this. Suppose we forget about -05, declare -04 done and all other issues queued for a hypothetical future revision, and that the IETF signs off on -04 tomorrow and sends it off to the RFC Editor with a request to expedite publication. (I'm not suggesting that as a procedure, just as the fastest theoretical way to get this finished). So we have a BCP protocol action on Friday and, with a little effort and good will, the ISOC Board approves an appropriate resolution next week. Now let's assume that, on the 6th of February, a proposal with deadline arrives from Neustar and that it leaves all of the issues that my questions suggest might be unresolved (and all of the issues that Bob Kahn's note raises clearly unresolved). The situation you fear doesn't change at all. The draft doesn't give the IAOC any authority to accept an unsolicited proposal in the absence of an IAD-created, IAOC-approved, RFP and at least the potential for competitive proposals against that RFP. The potential for CNRI to try to block an ISOC-based IAOC is unchanged. The issues about review or appeals, who can initiate them, and what they can change, that Sam, Avri, and others have been discussing with Mike, myself, and others are likely to be resolved by "no one at all in any meaningful way until the initial term of the 'arrangement' expires", a situation that I'm sure none of those who have been involved in that discussion would find acceptable. (And the resemblance between that situation and the one we now have with Foretec is very strong -- the only major difference that is apparent from Leslie's note is that there will be an expiration/ review date.) So, if such a proposal arrives and someone must respond to it, whomever that is, either as an individual or as a body, are going to need to go outside the bounds of the BCP and invent an ad hoc procedure, whether the BCP has been approved or not... unless, of course, the response is "no, we can't agree to this because we have no authority". It may be just a matter of aesthetics, but I don't want to see the BCP go into effect and for the first action of the IAOC to be to violate its terms. Unless I've misunderstood what is happening --and I may well misunderstand, hence all the questions-- I'd rather either * Fix the BCP to accommodate this case, i.e., to give the IAOC the authority to accept unsolicited, sole-source proposals for outsourced operations if that seems appropriate to them, even if those proposals do not fufill some of the principles of the BCP itself or * Bury the BCP, at least in its present form, until we are really ready to move forward with its provisions. The first of those options would, of course, respond to my question about how the community authorizes this type of deal: we examine the principles and give the IAOC the authority to do it. regards, john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Progressing Re: Progress report......
John C Klensin suggested as one option: * Fix the BCP to accommodate this case, i.e., to give the IAOC the authority to accept unsolicited, sole-source proposals for outsourced operations if that seems appropriate to them, even if those proposals do not fufill some of the principles of the BCP itself or I think the text Bert circulated as the resolution of Issue #788: Section 3 - Which functions should be done "in-house" allows this. It doesn't mention sole-sourcing, but it doesn't forbid it either. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Progressing Re: Progress report......
At 10:13 AM -0500 1/26/05, John C Klensin wrote: Hi John, The situation you fear doesn't change at all. The draft doesn't give the IAOC any authority to accept an unsolicited proposal in the absence of an IAD-created, IAOC-approved, RFP and at least the potential for competitive proposals against that RFP. What gives you this impression? The current IASA BCP doesn't include the term "RFP", nor does it require any public bidding process or specify any opportunity for the public to comment on potential contractors before contracts are signed. The "transparency and openness" portions of the BCP are all after-the-fact -- financial reporting, making the contracts or MOUs public, publishing decisions after they are made (with no time constraints), etc. When combined with the fact that we don't apparently have consensus that the community needs any way to review/appeal a decision of the IAOC, the document currently gives the IAOC full, unchecked control over the structure of IASA and how that work is contracted. So, IMO, if we pass the BCP as-is, the IAOC would have the authority to contract with Neustar to provide all of the current IETF secretariat services. and they could probably get away without telling us about the decision until after a binding commitment letter is signed. Personally, I am stunned by the idea that after years of complaining about our IT infrastructure, including the creation of a special mailing list for the IESG to collect details of our IT problems so that we could build a case to change providers, the IASA TT would even consider recommending a multi-year contract to continue receiving IT services (e-mail and web support) from the same provider. But, I haven't figured out if there is any forum in which I could constructively voice my surprise... The potential for CNRI to try to block an ISOC-based IAOC is unchanged. The issues about review or appeals, who can initiate them, and what they can change, that Sam, Avri, and others have been discussing with Mike, myself, and others are likely to be resolved by "no one at all in any meaningful way until the initial term of the 'arrangement' expires", a situation that I'm sure none of those who have been involved in that discussion would find acceptable. I certainly wouldn't find this acceptable. * Fix the BCP to accommodate this case, i.e., to give the IAOC the authority to accept unsolicited, sole-source proposals for outsourced operations if that seems appropriate to them, even if those proposals do not fufill some of the principles of the BCP itself or I don't see anything in the current BCP that prevents this, or even discourages it. Margaret ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Progressing Re: Progress report......
John writes: > > ... snip a lot .. > I'd rather either > > * Fix the BCP to accommodate this case, i.e., to give > the IAOC the authority to accept unsolicited, > sole-source proposals for outsourced operations if that > seems appropriate to them, even if those proposals do > not fufill some of the principles of the BCP itself or > > * Bury the BCP, at least in its present form, until we > are really ready to move forward with its provisions. > > The first of those options would, of course, respond to my > question about how the community authorizes this type of deal: > we examine the principles and give the IAOC the authority to do > it. > It seems to me that we (as IETF community) have no formal control at all over what CNRI/Fortec do. So why would we as a community have (or need) any say over what CNRI/Neustar do? All we need to do is that as soon as we have IASA in place (we still need to approve the BCP first) that IASA then starts to prepare for RFPs and such and then the process can start. During that process, we are still subject to whatever CNRI/Foretec/Neustar do, are we not? Bert > regards, > john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Progressing Re: Progress report......
Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: ... All we need to do is that as soon as we have IASA in place (we still need to approve the BCP first) that IASA then starts to prepare for RFPs and such and then the process can start. During that process, we are still subject to whatever CNRI/Foretec/Neustar do, are we not? That depends. If Neustar is prepared to negotiate a single source contract of limited duration, then it's the terms of that contract that both sides are subject too. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Progressing Re: Progress report......
> All we need to do is that as soon as we have IASA in place (we > still need to approve the BCP first) that IASA then starts > to prepare for RFPs and such and then the process can start. the "prepare for RFPs" seems futile (or at least *very* premature) if NeuStar is to get a N-year agreement/contract I agree with John that we need to figure out if the BCP as-is is all that useful in the face of what appears to be a done deal Scott ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Progressing Re: Progress report......
--On Wednesday, 26 January, 2005 11:02 -0500 Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 10:13 AM -0500 1/26/05, John C Klensin wrote: > > Hi John, > >> The situation you fear doesn't change at all. The draft >> doesn't give the IAOC any authority to accept an unsolicited >> proposal in the absence of an IAD-created, IAOC-approved, RFP >> and at least the potential for competitive proposals against >> that RFP. > > What gives you this impression? The current IASA BCP doesn't > include the term "RFP", nor does it require any public bidding > process or specify any opportunity for the public to comment > on potential contractors before contracts are signed. The > "transparency and openness" portions of the BCP are all > after-the-fact -- financial reporting, making the contracts or > MOUs public, publishing decisions after they are made (with no > time constraints), etc. When combined with the fact that we > don't apparently have consensus that the community needs any > way to review/appeal a decision of the IAOC, the document > currently gives the IAOC full, unchecked control over the > structure of IASA and how that work is contracted. > > So, IMO, if we pass the BCP as-is, the IAOC would have the > authority to contract with Neustar to provide all of the > current IETF secretariat services. and they could probably get > away without telling us about the decision until after a > binding commitment letter is signed. I just went back and looked at the text, and it appears, to my chagrin, that after weeks of discussion about "preferred outsourcing" and "RFP-based processes", we have "improved" the language sufficiently to not prevent, even in principle, private and secret dealings leading to contracts that cannot be un-done without any opportunity for meaningful community input either before or after the fact.Perhaps we need to fix that :-( > Personally, I am stunned by the idea that after years of > complaining about our IT infrastructure, including the > creation of a special mailing list for the IESG to collect > details of our IT problems so that we could build a case to > change providers, the IASA TT would even consider recommending > a multi-year contract to continue receiving IT services > (e-mail and web support) from the same provider. But, I > haven't figured out if there is any forum in which I could > constructively voice my surprise... It seems to me that you are a member of the community, and that you have just found the appropriate forum. My understanding from Harald's note and other conversations is that, if Neustar understands that this idea creates a bad smell around the community, they won't go through with the deal. And, if you believe that the TT's considering this idea constitutes actual bad behavior or incompetence rather than simple poor judgment, you know how to fill out recall petitions. >> The >> potential for CNRI to try to block an ISOC-based IAOC is >> unchanged. The issues about review or appeals, who can >> initiate them, and what they can change, that Sam, Avri, and >> others have been discussing with Mike, myself, and others are >> likely to be resolved by "no one at all in any meaningful way >> until the initial term of the 'arrangement' expires", a >> situation that I'm sure none of those who have been involved >> in that discussion would find acceptable. > > I certainly wouldn't find this acceptable. Of course, if Neustar agrees to whatever provisions are in the BCP, and whatever details about those provisions that the IAOC specifies, and is able to do so --which Harald's note indicates they are prepared to do-- then this should not be an issue. >> * Fix the BCP to accommodate this case, i.e., to give >> the IAOC the authority to accept unsolicited, >> sole-source proposals for outsourced operations if that >> seems appropriate to them, even if those proposals do >> not fufill some of the principles of the BCP itself or > > I don't see anything in the current BCP that prevents this, or > even discourages it. See above. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Progressing Re: Progress report......
Scott writes > > > All we need to do is that as soon as we have IASA in place (we > > still need to approve the BCP first) that IASA then starts > > to prepare for RFPs and such and then the process can start. > > the "prepare for RFPs" seems futile (or at least *very* premature) > if NeuStar is to get a N-year agreement/contract > Gets an "N-year" contract with whom? We are not part of the deal between CNRI/Neustar, are we? Not according to what I understood of the posting! Bert > I agree with John that we need to figure out if the BCP as-is > is all that useful in the face of what appears to be a done deal > > Scott > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Progressing Re: Progress report......
--On Wednesday, 26 January, 2005 18:02 +0100 "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Scott writes >> >> > All we need to do is that as soon as we have IASA in place >> > (we still need to approve the BCP first) that IASA then >> > starts to prepare for RFPs and such and then the process >> > can start. >> >> the "prepare for RFPs" seems futile (or at least *very* >> premature) if NeuStar is to get a N-year agreement/contract >> > Gets an "N-year" contract with whom? > We are not part of the deal between CNRI/Neustar, are we? > Not according to what I understood of the posting! Bert, Recognizing the textual problem that Margaret identified and moving back to intent, sooner or later the IAD and IAOC need to decide whether or not to issue one or more competitive RFPs for some or all of the secretariat functions. My understanding of the intent of the community was that we finish up the BCP, we get the IAOC and IAD in place, and then we get those RFPs written and issued on a relatively expeditious basis, certainly within six to nine months. Now, if we are going to go ahead and do so on that basis, then Joel's comments are exactly right -- this deal has little or nothing to do with the BCP or the IETF. On the other hand, if there is a contractual deal with Neustar, or if the issuance of the RFP(s) is delayed so that we can continue doing business as usual with Foretec (under Neustar auspices or otherwise) for some longer period of time, then we are certainly part of that deal, for better or worse. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Progressing Re: Progress report......
--On Wednesday, 26 January, 2005 17:04 +0100 "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > John writes: >> >> > ... snip a lot .. > >> I'd rather either >> >> * Fix the BCP to accommodate this case, i.e., to give >> the IAOC the authority to accept unsolicited, >> sole-source proposals for outsourced operations if that >> seems appropriate to them, even if those proposals do >> not fufill some of the principles of the BCP itself or >> >> * Bury the BCP, at least in its present form, until we >> are really ready to move forward with its provisions. >> >> The first of those options would, of course, respond to my >> question about how the community authorizes this type of deal: >> we examine the principles and give the IAOC the authority to >> do it. >> > > It seems to me that we (as IETF community) have no formal > control at all over what CNRI/Fortec do. So why would we as a > community have (or need) any say over what CNRI/Neustar do? > > All we need to do is that as soon as we have IASA in place (we > still need to approve the BCP first) that IASA then starts > to prepare for RFPs and such and then the process can start. > During that process, we are still subject to whatever > CNRI/Foretec/Neustar do, are we not? Absolutely. But there have been several suggestions that Neustar wants a guarantee of a year or two _from the IETF_ for them (and Foretec) to keep the secretariat for them to go ahead with the deal. If they get that guarantee from somewhere, the RFP preparation process is either moot or at least hugely dragged out. In principle, they might alternately get a guarantee from CNRI to fight any attempt to move the secretariat elsewhere with every tool, IPR claim, etc., at CNRI's disposal. Or they might guarantee CRNI that they would do so as a condition the deal and permission to use the claimed IPR. Any such guarantee would not involve the IETF either, but it might pretty thoroughly cripple any attempt to implement the BCP as it stands (or will stand soon). john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Progressing Re: Progress report......
--On Wednesday, 26 January, 2005 11:02 -0500 Margaret Wasserman I just went back and looked at the text, and it appears, to my chagrin, that after weeks of discussion about "preferred outsourcing" and "RFP-based processes", we have "improved" the language sufficiently to not prevent, even in principle, private and secret dealings leading to contracts that cannot be un-done without any opportunity for meaningful community input either before or after the fact.Perhaps we need to fix that :-( Yes. We seem to have been moving rather steadily in that direction... This is probably the result of basing our work on a draft (that I wrote) that was largely intended to describe the corporate organization of the IETF administrative support function. Most of the other informraiton in Carl's draft (including how we should handle our contract negotiations) was (at least IMO) okay with both the Scenario C and Scenario O camps and, as a result, has been omitted from the BCP document. And, yes, I do think we should do something to fix it... Perhaps we could review Carl's original draft (which may have expired by now, but I am sure we can find it) and identify sections that we think should be brought over into the IASA BCP? Margaret ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Progressing Re: Progress report......
Hi John, At 12:10 PM -0500 1/26/05, John C Klensin wrote: Recognizing the textual problem that Margaret identified and moving back to intent, sooner or later the IAD and IAOC need to decide whether or not to issue one or more competitive RFPs for some or all of the secretariat functions. My understanding of the intent of the community was that we finish up the BCP, we get the IAOC and IAD in place, and then we get those RFPs written and issued on a relatively expeditious basis, certainly within six to nine months. I'll add that it was my understanding that we formed the IASA-TT so that we could get a head-start on defining the structure of the administrative support activity, issuing RFPs and starting the search for an IAD. The IASA-TT seems to have done well on the third item, and from their web page it appears that they have undertaken some work on the first item. Hopefully they will not be distracted from this path by talk of the CNRI/Neustar deal. Margaret ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Progressing Re: Progress report......
I believe the scenarios you are outlining are certainly possible. I don't (personally) believe that we can write rules or process steps to make them impossible. I also am concsiously saying "possible" without any prejudice about "likelihood". That is -- I have no opinion about the likelihood of these possible outcomes. Because we can not make these things impossible, the only thing we can reasonably do is apply judgement. In this case, I believe that requires having a designated human being (or small group of human beings) sit down and discuss with the parties involved. These designated folks have to apply judgement and take action based on their understanding of the situation. As I understand it, that designated person/group are: the IAD and IAOC. That was a long-winded way of saying: these are justified concerns, but we are not as a group going to be able to prove our way out of them; even the IAD-to-be is going to have to say "in my judgement, we should do X". So, to the earlier comment about negotiating backroom closed deals: I don't recognize anything in what has been done/is being proposed that fits that description. My message last Friday aimed to do 3 things: . publicize that the transition team is (nothing more than) aware of some ongoing CNRI-NeuStar negotiations . provide a list of expected operational guidelines for secretariat services in 2005, irrespective of provider . observe that, from informal discussions we've had so far, and given other factors (e.g., continuity), we (the transition team) can envision a future where it would be a reasonable thing to engage in a contract with NeuStar-post-CNRI-deal that would live up to those operational guidelines. But the proof is still in the pudding: we (IETF in general, TT in particular) have not seen so much as a draft of a proposed contract for 2005 Secretariat services, from anyone. It is our anticipation that the order of operations would be: 1. a contract will be proposed, and negotiated by the IAD 2. if such negotiations lead to a final contract that is consistent with those guidelines (including ability to apply performance review), we have an option to pursue 3. if said negotiations do not yield such a contract, or if no such contract proposal appears reasonably soon, the IASA (on behalf of the IETF) is going to have to strike out and develop an independent RFP process if it is to meet the requirements of the BCP. Given Bob Kahn's recent message, I think people reading this list will understand that there would likely be resistance from CNRI to point #3. I personally believe we *all* benefit from making #2 work (including the requirement that the contract moves us beyond where we have been for the last N years with Secretariat, and is in line with what the IASA is supposed to be about). But we are still talking about work that *will* have to be done (negotiating) -- there are no secrets to be exposed from backrooms in terms of deals cut already. At least, not that I am aware of! Leslie. John C Klensin wrote: --On Wednesday, 26 January, 2005 17:04 +0100 "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: John writes: ... snip a lot .. I'd rather either * Fix the BCP to accommodate this case, i.e., to give the IAOC the authority to accept unsolicited, sole-source proposals for outsourced operations if that seems appropriate to them, even if those proposals do not fufill some of the principles of the BCP itself or * Bury the BCP, at least in its present form, until we are really ready to move forward with its provisions. The first of those options would, of course, respond to my question about how the community authorizes this type of deal: we examine the principles and give the IAOC the authority to do it. It seems to me that we (as IETF community) have no formal control at all over what CNRI/Fortec do. So why would we as a community have (or need) any say over what CNRI/Neustar do? All we need to do is that as soon as we have IASA in place (we still need to approve the BCP first) that IASA then starts to prepare for RFPs and such and then the process can start. During that process, we are still subject to whatever CNRI/Foretec/Neustar do, are we not? Absolutely. But there have been several suggestions that Neustar wants a guarantee of a year or two _from the IETF_ for them (and Foretec) to keep the secretariat for them to go ahead with the deal. If they get that guarantee from somewhere, the RFP preparation process is either moot or at least hugely dragged out. In principle, they might alternately get a guarantee from CNRI to fight any attempt to move the secretariat elsewhere with every tool, IPR claim, etc., at CNRI's disposal. Or they might gu
Re: Progressing Re: Progress report......
--On onsdag, januar 26, 2005 12:30:13 -0500 Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --On Wednesday, 26 January, 2005 11:02 -0500 Margaret Wasserman I just went back and looked at the text, and it appears, to my chagrin, that after weeks of discussion about "preferred outsourcing" and "RFP-based processes", we have "improved" the language sufficiently to not prevent, even in principle, private and secret dealings leading to contracts that cannot be un-done without any opportunity for meaningful community input either before or after the fact.Perhaps we need to fix that :-( Yes. We seem to have been moving rather steadily in that direction... This is probably the result of basing our work on a draft (that I wrote) that was largely intended to describe the corporate organization of the IETF administrative support function. Most of the other informraiton in Carl's draft (including how we should handle our contract negotiations) was (at least IMO) okay with both the Scenario C and Scenario O camps and, as a result, has been omitted from the BCP document. And, yes, I do think we should do something to fix it... Perhaps we could review Carl's original draft (which may have expired by now, but I am sure we can find it) and identify sections that we think should be brought over into the IASA BCP? I may be over-eager to get the organization in place - but - perhaps we should get this organizational BCP out the door and clear some tables for working on what we want this shiny new organization of ours to accomplish for us THIS year, rather than, as the BCP tries to be, ANY year? The BCP is not the end. Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Progressing Re: Progress report......
--At 11:37 AM -0500 1/26/05, John C Klensin wrote: > Of course, if Neustar agrees to whatever provisions are in the > BCP, and whatever details about those provisions that the IAOC > specifies, and is able to do so --which Harald's note indicates > they are prepared to do-- then this should not be an issue. So you don't have to rely solely on Harald or Leslie's attestations, the answer from the horse's mouth is yes, NeuStar's fully prepared and able to contract with the (ISOC-based) IAOC consistent with the BCP. And, yes, it's intentionally to make all of these concerns a non-issue. Just to clarify, our interest here is solely an attempt to facilitate a smooth transition of the secretariat operations into an environment consistent with the adminrest objectives. We're proposing to structure this as a non-profit, provide complete financial and operational transparency, open-source the tools, make all IPR we can unequivocally available, and enter into a contract with IAOC specifying all of this in writing for a limited term that includes termination for cause. there's no other motive here than to ensure a smooth transition for the benefit of the community. Best of all, we're not the ones making that determination! If this doesn't have the support of the TT and the community, then we won't proceed. We've commenced discussions with the TT and now the community, even though sensitive negotiations are still ongoing, to ensure this can be done for the community's best interest. That's why we can't say more yet regarding the proposed transaction, but are discussing how this scenario would work in the context of the BCP and for the best interests of the community, so we can try to be responsive to that. Discussions or questions are welcome, with the proviso that we obviously can't comment on pending acquisitions in detail. R, Mark Mark D. Foster | EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SVP & CTO | NeuStar, Inc. TEL: +1 571 434 5410/5411 | FAX: +1 571 434 5489 46000 Center Oak Plaza | Sterling, VA 20166 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Detailed Neustar answers (Re: Progress report......)
In this note, I'll attempt to answer each of your questions as they were written. Note - these are my opinions only; I have NOT cleared them with the rest of the transition team. Snipping off the introductory material: In particular, Leslie's note raises the following questions for me. If others have other questions, I think this is the right time to identify them. (1) The note indicates that "the Transition Team is favorably inclined to consider a proposal from NeuStar for continuing Secretariat services...". Does that language imply that the Transition Team believes that it has the authority to accept such a proposal, without waiting for the IAD and IAOC to be in place? No. The transition team believes that it is able to form an opinion, state that opinion to Neustar, and present that opinion to the community and the IAOC when that is established, but it does not have the authority to bind either the IETF, ISOC or the future IAOC. (2) During the brief, and (I believe necessarily) very indirect, discussion of this plan at the Washington Plenary, it seemed to be the plan that such a transfer would involve a transfer of any and all CNRI IPR claims (past, present, or future) that related to the IETF, its name, its work, etc., to the purchaser. The note says "All future intellectual property will be unequivocally accessible to the IETF and the community". Does that imply that this deal would leave some past or present IPR issues unresolved? This is called "wiggle room" at the current state of negotiations, it seems that CNRI intends to give Neustar permission to use some IPR that relates to the IETF, but will not transfer that IPR to Neustar. If it is transferred at all, it will be transferred to an entity that the IETF or its representative approves of. (Note: This is my interpretation of CNRI's stance as of some time ago. I can give no guarantees either that it was correct then or that it is still correct.) (Note(2): The statement above does not say anything about what I believe that CNRI owns. Separate topic.) However, once Neustar enters into a contract with the IAOC, I believe that the contract will state that IPR created under that contract will be unequivocally accessible to teh IETF and the community. Neustar has said that this is something they want to be clear, and are happy with. (3) Assuming Neustar acquires all of the putative CNRI IPR rights in this deal, is the planned transfer when the Neustar/Foretec "arrangement" (I notice that the note doesn't say "contract") ends, or are they prepared to transfer all of those claimed rights to the IETF/IASA/ISOC unconditionally and as soon as they acquire them? See above - Neustar has indicated that it will be happy to transfer any rights that it acquires to IETF/IASA/ISOC as soon as possible, but there are rights that it does not expect to acquire. (4) I'm listing this separately because it really isn't an IPR issue as such, but... From time to time, there have been suggestions that, if ISOC assumes any role in operating, sponsoring, or overseeing the IETF Secretariat or related functions, CRNI would sue them under the terms of an agreement that CRNI believes was made some years ago. If Neustar, or someone else, acquires of ownership, does CNRI intend to irrevocably waive any rights it might have (or believe it has) against ISOC, the IETF, or anyone else to operate or oversee the secretariat or to determine who does operate the secretariat? If they do not, where does that leave us with regard to getting the IASA up and functioning as "an IETF-controlled activity within the Internet Society"? I'll leave the details of the ISOC/CNRI relation to Bob Kahn - I still have not seen a statement that makes it clear exactly what the issue is. The closest I have come is the statement that "we had a firm verbal agreement", but exactly what the terms of that agreement were, I cannot tell. (5) The note indicates three other goals which this deal would accomplish, namely: o The IASA operation will be in place as an IETF-controlled activity within the Internet Society o There will be full financial transparency and accountability o There will be full management accountability The first of these seems to be to be entirely between the IETF community and ISOC, as documented in the draft BCP. It seems to me that, at least modulo the issue raised in (4) above, arrangements between CNRI, Neustar, or others are neither necessary nor sufficient (or even contributory) for that to occur. Do I misunderstand something about this, or are there conditions and considerations in this arrangement (such as concerns about the possible litigation referred to above that the transition team (and/or IAB, IESG, or ISOC) have not told the community about? "Full financial transparency and accountability" and "full management accountability" are principles, lacking operational definitions. As I understand the BCP, part of the role that the community is deleg
NeuStar consensus (was Re: Progress report......)
Harald sez: - We will *share* with the community our opinion that this effort could help achieve a transition with less conflict and uncertainty than going straight from a CNRI-provided secretariat to an open RFP process would. is there any particular consensus determination mechanism envisioned? i.e., how will who (IASA, IAD, IESG, IAB, all of the above) figure out of the IETF community thinks that its a good idea for the IETF to agree to N years (where N seems to be an unknown value) of NeuStar before issuing an RFP? Scott (ps - my personal feeling is that the general idea is a good one but, like John, I think there are a lot of questions that need to be answered before IETF community should be asked if it supports the "arrangement" so that NeuStar can find out, as they say they want to know, if the IETF community supports their initiative) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Detailed Neustar answers (Re: Progress report......)
Many thanks for the in-depth response. --On Wednesday, 26 January, 2005 10:12 +0100 Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (everything on which I think your response is completely satisfactory snipped) >... >> (2) During the brief, and (I believe necessarily) very >> indirect, discussion of this plan at the Washington Plenary, >> it seemed to be the plan that such a transfer would involve a >> transfer of any and all CNRI IPR claims (past, present, or >> future) that related to the IETF, its name, its work, etc., >> to the purchaser. The note says "All future intellectual >> property will be unequivocally accessible to the IETF and the >> community". Does that imply that this deal would leave some >> past or present IPR issues unresolved? > > This is called "wiggle room" at the current state of > negotiations, it seems that CNRI intends to give Neustar > permission to use some IPR that relates to the IETF, but will > not transfer that IPR to Neustar. If it is transferred at all, > it will be transferred to an entity that the IETF or its > representative approves of. (Note: This is my interpretation > of CNRI's stance as of some time ago. I can give no guarantees > either that it was correct then or that it is still correct.) Just to be sure I understand what you are saying above... To the extent to which CNRI's beliefs about what it owns are valid and enforceable, doesn't that situation effectively give CNRI, and not the IETF or IASA, the choice, forever, over who operates the secretariat? Patents at least expire. If we are not going to walk away from whatever they are claiming rights to, has the transition team considered whether deferring that dispute might not make it worse? In particular, has the transition team consulted with counsel as to whether Neustar's accepting CNRI's "permission" to use that IPR on behalf of the IETF could be construed as IETF acceptance of those claims, hence making things more difficult later? > (Note(2): The statement above does not say anything about what > I believe that CNRI owns. Separate topic.) > However, once Neustar enters into a contract with the IAOC, I > believe that the contract will state that IPR created under > that contract will be unequivocally accessible to teh IETF and > the community. Neustar has said that this is something they > want to be clear, and are happy with. Good. I assumed this from Leslie's note. >> (3) Assuming Neustar acquires all of the putative CNRI IPR >> rights in this deal, is the planned transfer when the >> Neustar/Foretec "arrangement" (I notice that the note doesn't >> say "contract") ends, or are they prepared to transfer all of >> those claimed rights to the IETF/IASA/ISOC unconditionally and >> as soon as they acquire them? > > See above - Neustar has indicated that it will be happy to > transfer any rights that it acquires to IETF/IASA/ISOC as soon > as possible, but there are rights that it does not expect to > acquire. >> (4) I'm listing this separately because it really isn't an IPR >> issue as such, but... From time to time, there have been >> suggestions that, if ISOC assumes any role in operating, >> sponsoring, or overseeing the IETF Secretariat or related >> functions, CRNI would sue them under the terms of an agreement >> that CRNI believes was made some years ago. If Neustar, or >> someone else, acquires of ownership, does CNRI intend to >> irrevocably waive any rights it might have (or believe it has) >> against ISOC, the IETF, or anyone else to operate or oversee >> the secretariat or to determine who does operate the >> secretariat? If they do not, where does that leave us with >> regard to getting the IASA up and functioning as "an >> IETF-controlled activity within the Internet Society"? > > I'll leave the details of the ISOC/CNRI relation to Bob Kahn - > I still have not seen a statement that makes it clear exactly > what the issue is. The closest I have come is the statement > that "we had a firm verbal agreement", but exactly what the > terms of that agreement were, I cannot tell. I understand. But if, as implied by his posting yesterday and some prior comments, CNRI is likely to try to prevent the establishment of an IASA within an ISOC framework (at least on that has any authority vis-a-vis the secretariat), then the claim that this deal accomplishes many of the goals of the BCP is a little dubious, isn't it? >> (5) The note indicates three other goals which this deal would >> accomplish, namely: >> >>> o The IASA operation will be in place as an IETF-controlled >>> activity within the Internet Society >>> >>> o There will be full financial transparency and >>> accountability >>> >>> o There will be full management accountability >> >> The first of these seems to be to be entirely between the IETF >> community and ISOC, as documented in the draft BCP. It seems >> to me that, at least modulo the issue raised in (4) above, >> arrangements between CNRI, Neustar, or ot
Re: NeuStar consensus (was Re: Progress report......)
--On onsdag, januar 26, 2005 09:21:34 -0500 Scott Bradner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Harald sez: - We will *share* with the community our opinion that this effort could help achieve a transition with less conflict and uncertainty than going straight from a CNRI-provided secretariat to an open RFP process would. is there any particular consensus determination mechanism envisioned? For forming an opinion and sharing it with the community, the transition team has so far operated by consensus :-) i.e., how will who (IASA, IAD, IESG, IAB, all of the above) figure out of the IETF community thinks that its a good idea for the IETF to agree to N years (where N seems to be an unknown value) of NeuStar before issuing an RFP? My opinion: First - get the facts out where people can see them. Second - ask. We're still on the first item. FWIW, the two values of N I have heard bandied about are "1" and "2" - and that includes the year 2005. I wouldn't ask ANYONE to state a firm opinion without knowing that number. (note: talking about numbers in contracts here, not "what might possibly happen at the end of the period".) Scott (ps - my personal feeling is that the general idea is a good one but, like John, I think there are a lot of questions that need to be answered before IETF community should be asked if it supports the "arrangement" so that NeuStar can find out, as they say they want to know, if the IETF community supports their initiative) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
NeuStar as a unit (was Re: Progress report......)
Harald mentions in passing: for instance, the transition team has briefly considered the option of making "permanent institutional memory" in the form of archives a separate task that is carried out outside the present "secretariat" framework - since Carl's reports indicate that this task may need a different skillset, and different resources, than the secretariat currently has. is there a requirement for the IETF to agrre that NeuStar take over all of the current Foretec funstions? It seems to me that providing mailing list services (along with the archives of them) is a quite separable function - there are a number of companies in that business. I'd like to see a RFP be developed for the mailing list function and that bids be solicited for it - NeuStar could bid on the RFC if they felt that they have the expertise but I see no reason to think that they would automatically be the best choice. In the long run I'd like the IETF to move away from having a single vendor for all of our support services (ignoring for the moment the RFC Editor and IANA which are already seperate) - it puts too much dependency in one place and assumes that expertise in, for example, meeting managment automatically translates into expertise in other areas such as mailing list management. Scott ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: NeuStar as a unit (was Re: Progress report......)
--On onsdag, januar 26, 2005 09:32:41 -0500 Scott Bradner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Harald mentions in passing: for instance, the transition team has briefly considered the option of making "permanent institutional memory" inthe form of archives a separate task that is carried out outside thepresent "secretariat" framework - since Carl's reports indicate that thistask may need a different skillset, and different resources, than thesecretariat currently has. is there a requirement for the IETF to agrre that NeuStar take over all of the current Foretec funstions? I have heard no such requirement either from Neustar or from the community. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
