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]