Network Working Group                                      H. Alvestrand
Internet-Draft                                                 L. Daigle
Expires: August 8, 2004                                 February 8, 2004


             IETF Administration Restructuring:  Motivation
              draft-alvestrand-adminrest-motivation-00.txt

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 8, 2004.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This document follows up the observations and recommendations
   outlined in the IAB Advisory Committee report ([1]) with a statement
   of purpose for the administration restructuring proposed in [3].  A
   high level definition of the IETF's purpose can be found in [2].
   All 4 documents are meant to be read collectively.

1. Introduction

   As Internet technology is increasingly important to the world, the
   full set of organizations involved in the life cycle of producing the
   IETF's published output must work together in a coordinated and
   efficient fashion to carry out the IETF's work (described in [2]).



Alvestrand & Daigle      Expires August 8, 2004                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft    draft-alvestrand-adminrest-motivation-00 February 2004


   To enable this coordination, an administrative structure that allows
   the IETF to respond to changing times and economic climates is
   proposed in [3].

   This document provides the rationale for that proposal.

2. Overview

   It is the work of the IETF's participants that is the basis of the
   IETF's continued relevance,  through contributions of technical
   expertise  and participation in public open discussions.  The IETF
   remains open to contributions from any informed individual.

   The IAB Advisory Committee (AdvComm) report ([1]) recommended
   establishing a more regular and uniform administration of the
   operational aspects of the IETF, with clear lines of control and
   accountability to the IETF participants.

   In practical terms, this means:

      There is a need for an overarching IETF structure that is
      responsible for coordinating and administering operational
      activities that support the IETF mission.

      This structure must have no other responsibilities than to make
      the IETF work well.

      The structure must have clear, comprehensive and transparent
      accounting for all activities, being visibly accountable to IETF
      participants.

      This structure needs to have normal business arrangements with the
      various organizations that do work on behalf of the IETF.

      The structure needs to administer the money flows that constitute
      the IETF funding and operation.

   The form of this structure depends strongly on both legal advice and
   advice from people with insight in how the IETF operates.  It will be
   created in a form that is able to fulfill the goals listed above.

3. What this offers

   A common question is, "Does a new structure solve any of the IETF's
   existing problems, or is it simply rearranging deck chairs?".

   It is our belief that a change in structure and streamlining of
   overall administration is a necessary first step to enable the other



Alvestrand & Daigle      Expires August 8, 2004                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft    draft-alvestrand-adminrest-motivation-00 February 2004


   changes needed to address the requirements outlined in [1].    In the
   current model, it is difficult to make any IETF-wide operational
   change.  Without recognized coordination and accountability across
   the organizations, each organization that supports functions of the
   IETF (ISI/RFC-Editor, ICANN/IANA, CNRI/Secretariat) can be operating
   in finest form, while the overall IETF effort suffers for lack of
   funding, fails or otherwise misses its mission.

   The IETF support structure (that which enables meetings to be
   organized and held, drafts to be published and maintained, protocol
   specifications to be published, protocol numbers to be assigned, etc)
   has been functioning for many years on a network of unwritten, partly
   written and written agreements.  The IETF has depended for its
   operation on the good will of all organizations supporting these IETF
   functions to work for the best of the Internet and to have the
   ability to keep in constant touch to arrive (with a joint
   perspective) at the best decisions for the Internet.

   As the Internet and the IETF has grown and changed, this structure of
   loosely-coupled organizations carrying out core elements of the
   IETF's mission is showing the strain of supporting a far larger
   organization than it used to.  The participants - IETF participants,
   the IETF leadership and these organizations themselves -  are using
   significant time and energy on the communication needed, and there
   are some overall dispositions that simply cannot be made because
   there is no single entity that has the overall responsibility for the
   management of the IETF.

   This structure has little overall accountability - it has depended on
   each organization supporting an IETF function to exercise its best
   judgment.  It is also extremely hard to explain to outside
   participants who is making a particular decision, and why this
   particular entity is the right one to make it.

   The individuals, corporations and other organizations that contribute
   to the IETF are demanding more transparency and accountability for
   the funds they invest in the IETF - through the meeting fees, the
   time they invest in the work, and the contributions they make through
   ISOC.  At a time when the attendance at meetings has been shrinking,
   the complex structure of the IETF support does not make getting more
   contributions easier.

4. Summary

   To put it succinctly, the IETF is in need of making some significant
   operational choices in order to evolve and continue to be able to
   fulfill its mission.  Under today's operational model, these
   decisions have to be made by each organization supporting or funding



Alvestrand & Daigle      Expires August 8, 2004                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft    draft-alvestrand-adminrest-motivation-00 February 2004


   an IETF function -- ISOC may seek more organizational support; IANA,
   Secretariat or the RFC-Editor may decide to scael back services to
   save money; the Secretariat may have to vary the meeting fees to meet
   their own costs.  We believe there needs to be a single focus of the
   IETF's administrative management to allow these choices to be made
   and implemented in a way that is will allow the entire IETF effort to
   remain viable and relevant.  A proposal for structuring that single
   focus is outlined in [3].

5. Security Considerations

   This document does not discuss Internet protocols, and thereby
   introduces no security issues for their operation.

References

   [1]  AdvComm, AdvComm., "The IETF in the Large:  Administration and
        Execution", draft-iab-advcomm-01 (work in progress), December
        2003.

   [2]  Alvestrand, H., "IETF Mission Statement", February 2004.

   [3]  Daigle, L. and H. Alvestrand, "A Proposal for IETF
        Administration Restructuring", February 2004.


Authors' Addresses

   Harald Alvestrand

   EMail: harald@alvestrand.no


   Leslie Daigle

   EMail: leslie@thinkingcat.com, leslie@verisignlabs.com















Alvestrand & Daigle      Expires August 8, 2004                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft    draft-alvestrand-adminrest-motivation-00 February 2004


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.



















Alvestrand & Daigle      Expires August 8, 2004                 [Page 5]