--On Tuesday, 07 September, 2004 11:35 -0700 Aaron Falk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 5, 2004, at 4:15 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
I do not think that recommendation 7 in scenario B is a good
idea. I believe that plenary time is full enough without
crowding it more.
What about a
At 4:49 PM -0500 9/8/04, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 9/8/04 at 4:54 PM -0400, Lynn St.Amour wrote:
Should the IETF incorporate as a separate entity...
To date, there has been no proposal, in Carl's document or otherwise
as far as I know, for *the IETF* to incorporate as a separate
entity. There have
Carl Malamud wrote:
like many things outside the core technical field, these things are hard,
and harder than they look, and hard enough that you need a better lawyer.
as long as IETF remains an unincorporated association, i think you need
every new IESG and IAB member to add their signature to
--On Wednesday, 08 September, 2004 09:21 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Carl Malamud wrote:
like many things outside the core technical field, these
things are hard, and harder than they look, and hard enough
that you need a better lawyer. as long as IETF remains an
--On onsdag, september 08, 2004 08:55:26 -0400 John C Klensin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And that's exactly why the liability insurance policy held by
ISOC
covers IETF officials today.
Would someone who actually knows or can find out care to comment
on whether the insurance would cover such
At 8:55 AM -0400 9/8/04, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Wednesday, 08 September, 2004 09:21 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And that's exactly why the liability insurance policy held by
ISOC covers IETF officials today.
Would someone who actually knows or can find out care to
On 9/8/04 at 4:54 PM -0400, Lynn St.Amour wrote:
Should the IETF incorporate as a separate entity...
To date, there has been no proposal, in Carl's document or otherwise
as far as I know, for *the IETF* to incorporate as a separate entity.
There have been proposals to incorporate a body to deal
Hi Pete,
At 6:17 PM -0400 9/8/04, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
To date, there has been no proposal, in Carl's document or
otherwise as far as I know, for *the IETF* to incorporate as a
separate entity. There have been proposals to incorporate a body to
deal with IETF administrative functions (like
Here's a version of what the explosive bolts could look like.
Firstly, note that the IETF (*not* the ISOC) signed an MOU
with ICANN on March 1st 2000. Fred Baker signed it as IETF Chair,
I signed it as IAB Chair, and Mike Roberts signed it as ICANN
President. The IETF lawyer and the ICANN lawyer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6 sep 2004, at 07.31, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. I think that we shouldn't broaden the discussion at this time ( as
Avri suggested ), on the grounds of keeping things simple.
I understand the desire to keep thing simple and that Carl is attempting
a simple fix to a
On 7 sep 2004, at 02.13, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm very puzzled. I though those two extremes were exactly described
by scenarios A and D.
Perhaps I misread, but while I saw that A and D are the extremes of the
scenarios represented to date, I was suggesting is that
I believe that the difference between what Avri is discussing and
what is discussed in Carl's draft is that Avri is talking about
incorporating the IETF (the standards function), either as part of
ISOC or as an independent entity, not just the administrative support
function. Carl's draft
Hi. First I'd like to start off by saying that I think Carl's
document is a very good start for discussing these options.
I support the recommendations made in section 3. I believe they are
well justified and would be a great step in the right direction.
Section 3 talks about clarifying the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian E Carpenter) writes:
...
Firstly, note that the IETF (*not* the ISOC) signed an MOU with ICANN on
March 1st 2000. Fred Baker signed it as IETF Chair, I signed it as IAB
Chair, and Mike Roberts signed it as ICANN President. The IETF lawyer
and the ICANN lawyer were
like many things outside the core technical field, these things are hard,
and harder than they look, and hard enough that you need a better lawyer.
as long as IETF remains an unincorporated association, i think you need
every new IESG and IAB member to add their signature to all current MoU's
On Sep 5, 2004, at 4:15 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
I do not think that recommendation 7 in scenario B is a good idea. I
believe that plenary time is full enough without crowding it more.
What about a 'business meeting' that is scheduled in wg slot or even on
Sunday?
I understand that there may be
Aaron == Aaron Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Aaron On Sep 5, 2004, at 4:15 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
I do not think that recommendation 7 in scenario B is a good
idea. I believe that plenary time is full enough without
crowding it more.
Aaron What about a 'business
: Options for IETF administrative restructuring
Scott writes:
... snip ...
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
]
Subject: Re: Options for IETF administrative restructuring
I'd like to provide one point of important clarification:
the ISOC trustees appointed by the IETF do *not* represent
the IETF. So, while I agree firmly that the IETF's
relationship to ISOC is closer than the IETF's relationship
-
From: Leslie Daigle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 6:09 PM
To: Steve Crocker
Cc: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)';
[EMAIL PROTECTED]'.cnri.reston.va.us; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Options for IETF administrative restructuring
I'd like to provide one point
Falk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 02:53
To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
Cc: Scott Bradner; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Options for IETF administrative restructuring
On Sep 3, 2004, at 3:06 PM, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
If we were to go for option C, then in my
All,
My two cents worth...
1. I'm inclined to prefer option A or B, on the grounds of keeping
things simple ( BUT see point 4, below ).
2. I think that we shouldn't broaden the discussion at this time ( as
Avri suggested ), on the grounds of keeping things simple.
3. These choices don't
Hi Graham,
I'd like to make a couple of comments on your post -- not to argue
with you (because I think we are in basic agreement), but just to
clarify my earlier comments.
At 12:31 PM +0100 9/6/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
4. However, Margaret has written about problems with existing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All,
My two cents worth...
5. Section 3.1 of Carl's Report ( Page 20 ) states Evaluation of
applicants might consist of a search committee appointed by the IETF
Chair. Isn't the appointment of committee members what the IETF
empowers the Nomcom for ?
Not any
-
From: Aaron Falk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 02:53
To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
Cc: Scott Bradner; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Options for IETF administrative restructuring
On Sep 3, 2004, at 3:06 PM, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
If we were to go for option C, then in my
On 6 sep 2004, at 07.31, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. I think that we shouldn't broaden the discussion at this time ( as
Avri suggested ), on the grounds of keeping things simple.
I understand the desire to keep thing simple and that Carl is
attempting a simple fix to a single problem. However,
Graham,
One comment... more, perhaps to come, or already covered by
others.
--On Monday, 06 September, 2004 12:31 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All,
My two cents worth...
1. I'm inclined to prefer option A or B, on the grounds of
keeping things simple ( BUT see point 4, below ).
...
On 9/6/04 at 3:11 PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
The benefit of C is (in my opinion) that it does not assume a
default (strong) relationship, but that it requires both
organisations to actively want to continue/renew the relationship
every so many years. And such checkpoints are nice and
Avri,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2 sep 2004, at 07.11, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Yes that would be helpful.
Well, I don't agree. I think it would defocus the discussion (which
is about putting the IETF's administration onto a business-like
basis). IMHO the only case in which we should discuss the
On Sep 3, 2004, at 3:06 PM, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
If we were to go for option C, then in my personal view, it would have
the
serious benefit that we are ALWAYS (from day 1) responsible to make
sure
things work well. And we need to re-negotiate every so often if we want
to keep the
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
I think the IETF also has paid employees. Aren't these people paid by the
ISOC? If not, please correct this information.
The IETF does not have paid employees.
ISOC has paid employees, but they do not work for the IETF.
Foretec has paid
Harald wrote...
Foretec has paid employees doing the secretariat job.
One of the transparency problems can be seen at
https://www1.ietf.org/secretariat.html
The Secretariat is hosted by the Corporation for National Research Initiatives.
It can be reached at:
IETF
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
Here's my *personal* perspective on reviewing the scenarios
Carl's laid out. By my reading,
Scenario A says: an existing organization, ISOC, will bear the
responsibility for the administrative support of the IETF, as
an extension of its existing commitment to the IETF.
Scenario B says: Scenario
Scott writes:
... snip ...
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
: RE: Options for IETF administrative restructuring
Scott writes:
... snip ...
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
Hi All,
Like most people who have been involved in these discussions over the
past couple of years, I have my own personal views on the core
problems facing the IETF's administrative support functions and what
we should do to resolve them.
As we have worked through these issues, it has become
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Christian,
...
3/ Do we have an analysis of the policy implications in bringing
responsibility for the administration of Internet Standards negotiation
into the same body that is responsible for their oversight (via
appointment of IAB and Trustee appeal role)?
--On torsdag, september 02, 2004 12:01:35 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Christian also implies the converse question: would scenarios C D
reduce a hypothetical existing conflict of interest for the ISOC
trusteees? Again, I don't see why. Firstly, I don't think there is
an
Harald Tveit Alvestrand Sent: 02 September 2004 11:16
--On torsdag, september 02, 2004 12:01:35 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Christian also implies the converse question: would scenarios C D
reduce a hypothetical existing conflict of interest for the ISOC
Christian de Larrinaga wrote:
Harald Tveit Alvestrand Sent: 02 September 2004 11:16
--On torsdag, september 02, 2004 12:01:35 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Christian also implies the converse question: would scenarios C D
reduce a hypothetical existing conflict of interest
Harald sed:
scenarios C and D envision incorporating the *support function* for the
IETF. The IETF would remain an undefined entity under these scenarios.
I've had another suggestion that the IETF (the real technical process
entity) should become a formally recognizable entity of
If people want that possibility described, please speak up - Carl has the
pen ready
Yes that would be helpful.
Well, I don't agree. I think it would defocus the discussion (which
is about putting the IETF's administration onto a business-like
basis). IMHO the only case in which
Harald sed:
scenarios C and D envision incorporating the *support function* for the
IETF. The IETF would remain an undefined entity under these scenarios.
I've had another suggestion that the IETF (the real technical process
entity) should become a formally recognizable
Just so we're clear, that was my going-in assumption and I've kept
that throughout the analysis. Any of the structures I've outlined
Understood.
can be focused strictly on administrative support (just like
any of the structures could be corrupted to reach beyond that
focus). That's why I
At 06:55 AM 09/02/04 -0700, Carl Malamud wrote:
Perceptions are always important. Under Scenario's A and B, likewise,
the Internet Society probably gets to be a target.
The ISOC is a target anyway, as the RFCs have a copyright notice in them
with ISOC's name in it.
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
scenarios C and D envision incorporating the *support function* for the
IETF. The IETF would remain an undefined entity under these scenarios.
I've had another suggestion that the IETF (the real technical process
entity) should become a
I think the IETF also has paid employees
the IETF currently has no employees (paid or otherwise)
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Iljitsch == Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Iljitsch - meeting status: decided, under consideration, open -
Iljitsch date specific constraints, such as the continent that has
Iljitsch been selected - up to date numbers for hotel
Thanks for your comments, Jordi!
I'm replying to part of your note, and changing the subject line to get
different topics on different threads. I do think we need some kind of
IETF consensus on the criteria for venue selection - and once we have that
documented consensus, we need to
Daigle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 7:53 AM
Subject: Options for IETF administrative restructuring
Hello, IETF community.
Attached is the document we promised you in San Diego - a report from
our
John,
We are in agreement that key strategic decisions have to be made
with the informed consent of the community. Harald and I have
made the commitment to put as much on the table as is possible
to have a rational open discussion that should come before that consent
phase. That's the commitment
leslie,
you wrote, in response to john:
We are in agreement that key strategic decisions have to be made
with the informed consent of the community. Harald and I have
made the commitment to put as much on the table as is possible ...
let me quote from california's sunshine law:
The
[This is a re-send of a message I sent last night; that message is
caught in the list moderation queue because the attachment put
it over the message size limit. It should appear on the list...
sometime. The Internet-Draft may appear in the archive before
then. In the meantime, there are
Leslie and Harald,
I would like to make one suggestion about this process. For
suggestions about substance, I will, of course, wait for the
final -00 version of the draft. This note is deliberately
being sent before I have done so because I don't want my remarks
to be biased by how I feel
55 matches
Mail list logo
