Subject: [Fwd: Options for IETF administrative restructuring]

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 13:42:59 -0400

This message is a *pointer* to a discussion -- i.e.,
forwarded here in case there are those here who do not
follow the ietf@ discussion regularly  ( ;-)  ).  Given
the involvement in the IETF workings that you have
as WG chairs, you probably want to think about providing
your individual input to this discussion (on the [email-masked]
mailing list  -- NOT HERE!).

BTW, the draft is published, and is draft-malamud-consultant-report-00

Leslie.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Options for IETF administrative restructuring
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 11:16:57 -0400
From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
CC: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>

[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 rumours of some possible math
  errors, so it's quite possible an -01 version will appear very
  quickly :-)   -- Leslie.]

Hello, IETF community.

Attached is the document we promised you in San Diego - a report from
our consultant, Carl Malamud, which lays out a series of options and
recommendations for moving forward with the IETF administrative
restructuring process, according to the recommendations laid out
in RFC3716 (the Advisory Committee report).  It has been submitted
to the Internet Drafts repository and should be showing up there
shortly.

Some important things to note:

THIS IS NOT A DOCUMENT TO BE READ IN ISOLATION.
Minimally, reviewing the Advisory Committee report (RFC3716) is
necessary to understand the context of the proposals laid out in
this draft.

THIS IS NOT YET AN IETF DECISION.
That will be taken later, based on your input and IETF rough consensus.

THIS IS NOT THE IESG/IAB's RECOMMENDATION.
Our recommendation will come later, based on your input and the
evolution of our thinking.

THIS IS NOT AN ISOC POSITION.
The document describes potential relationships of the IETF
administrative activity and ISOC.  However, the document is written
as a proposal for IETF discussion -- the ISOC Board has not been asked
to formulate a position on supporting one or any of these proposals; we
need to have that discussion as it becomes clearer what the IETF wants
in its future.

This IS, however, the culmination of many, many hours of information
gathering and a near-infinite number of conversations by Carl Malamud,
attempting to give the best basis on which the IETF could make a
decision that he could within the timeframe given.

We encourage all interested IETF participants to read the report most
carefully, and give feedback on it - on the IETF list for public
discussion, directly to Carl or the IETF and IAB chairs if you want to
make off-list comments.

FURTHER STEPS

The next steps in this process depend on the community feedback and
whether we can gauge a consensus of the IETF on this mailing list. What
we think is reasonable so far is:

- Have a public discussion on the IETF list on the options presented in
the draft

- By early September, the IESG and IAB will attempt to distill a set of
recommendations that we think capture a reasonable consensus of the
community, and publish this as an internet-draft, which will be revised
over the next month, possibly several times, based on further
discussions

- By late September, we emit a Last Call on this set of recommendations,
if we deem that we have a reasonable consensus for the proposals

- By late October, if the IETF community still shows consensus, we will
declare that we have a decision, and will start executing based on that
decision.

In order to be able to move rapidly when we go into the "execution"
phase, we may initiate some activities of a "fact-finding" nature - such
as investigating possible suppliers of services and candidates for the
positions we envisage filling - before that, but irrevocable decisions
will await IETF consensus.

Please read the attachment - please comment - please THINK.

While this in itself should not change the IETF standards process at
all, support functions are important to the IETF.

We need to take the time to get this one right.

                     Leslie and Harald.

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality:
         Yours to discover."
                                    -- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------

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

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality:
      Yours to discover."
                                 -- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------