draft-malamud-consultant-report-01.txt   draft-malamud-consultant-report-00.txt 
Network Working Group C. Malamud, Ed. Network Working Group C. Malamud, Ed.
Internet-Draft Memory Palace Press Internet-Draft Memory Palace Press
Expires: March 9, 2005 September 8, 2004 Expires: February 23, 2005 August 25, 2004
IETF Administrative Support Functions IETF Administrative Support Functions
draft-malamud-consultant-report-01 draft-malamud-consultant-report-00
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
of section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each of section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each
author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of
which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of
which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
RFC 3668. RFC 3668.
skipping to change at page 1, line 35 skipping to change at page 1, line 35
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 9, 2005. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 23, 2005.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).
Abstract Abstract
This Internet-Draft discusses the restructuring of administrative This Internet-Draft discusses the restructuring of administrative
support functions for the IETF. The draft begins with a discussion support functions for the IETF. The draft begins with a discussion
of prior steps in the process that led up to this report and of prior steps in the process that led up to this report and
skipping to change at page 3, line 28 skipping to change at page 3, line 28
2.2 Function 1: Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.2 Function 1: Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3 Function 2: Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.3 Function 2: Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.4 Function 3: Core Information Technology . . . . . . . . . 16 2.4 Function 3: Core Information Technology . . . . . . . . . 16
2.5 Function 4: Document and Information Flow . . . . . . . . 17 2.5 Function 4: Document and Information Flow . . . . . . . . 17
3. Recommendations for Restructuring the Administrative 3. Recommendations for Restructuring the Administrative
Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.1 Recommendation 1: Hire An Administrative Director . . . . 20 3.1 Recommendation 1: Hire An Administrative Director . . . . 20
3.2 Recommendation 2: Establish Contracts for Core Services . 21 3.2 Recommendation 2: Establish Contracts for Core Services . 21
3.2.1 Details of Potential RFP Components . . . . . . . . . 24 3.2.1 Details of Potential RFP Components . . . . . . . . . 24
3.3 Recommendation 3: Provide Timely and Uniform Financial 3.3 Recommendation 3: Provide Timely and Uniform Financial
Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.4 Recommendation 4: More Focus on Archives . . . . . . . . . 28 3.4 Recommendation 4: More Focus on Archives . . . . . . . . . 28
4. Options for an Institutional Basis for Administrative 4. Options for an Institutional Basis for Administrative
Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.1 Discussion of Organizational Form and Legal Domicile . . . 30 4.1 Discussion of Organizational Form and Legal Domicile . . . 29
4.2 Scenario A: ISOC Operating Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 4.2 Scenario A: ISOC Operating Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.2.1 Division of the Internet Society . . . . . . . . . . . 31 4.2.1 Division of the Internet Society . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.2.2 Intended benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 4.2.2 Intended benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.2.3 Additional Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 4.2.3 Additional Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.3 Scenario B: More Formalized ISOC Operating Unit . . . . . 33 4.3 Scenario B: More Formalized ISOC Operating Unit . . . . . 32
4.4 Scenario C: Well-Defined Entity With Close Ties to ISOC . 35 4.4 Scenario C: Well-Defined Entity With Close Ties to ISOC . 34
4.4.1 How Scenario C Might Work In Practice . . . . . . . . 35 4.4.1 How Scenario C Might Work In Practice . . . . . . . . 34
4.5 Scenario D: Autonomous Entity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 4.5 Scenario D: Autonomous Entity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.6 Discussion of Unincorporated Associations . . . . . . . . 41 5. Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5. Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 5.1 Short-Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.1 Short-Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 5.2 Long-Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.2 Long-Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
6. Acknowledgment of CNRI Contribution to the IETF Community . . 47 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
7. Acknowledgment of Contributions and Reviews . . . . . . . . . 48 8. Acknowledgment of CNRI Contribution to the IETF Community . . 45
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 9. Acknowledgment of Contributions and Reviews . . . . . . . . . 46
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 10.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
10.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 10.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
10.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Editorial Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 A. Consulting Contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 B. IETF Financial Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
A. Consulting Contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 B.1 Consolidated 3-Year Historical Income Statement . . . . . 57
B. IETF Financial Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 B.2 Internet Society 2004 Budget Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 59
B.1 Consolidated 3-Year Historical Income Statement . . . . . 65 C. 10-Year Meeting Attendance Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
B.2 Internet Society 2004 Budget Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 67 C.1 Analysis of Meeting-Based Expense and Revenue Drivers . . 64
C. 10-Year Meeting Attendance Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
C.1 Analysis of Meeting-Based Expense and Revenue Drivers . . 72
D. Sample Draft Incorporating Documents for a Hypothetical D. Sample Draft Incorporating Documents for a Hypothetical
IETF Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 IETF Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
D.1 Sample Draft Articles of Incorporation . . . . . . . . . . 74 D.1 Sample Draft Articles of Incorporation . . . . . . . . . . 66
D.2 Sample Draft Bylaws of the IETF Foundation . . . . . . . . 74 D.2 Sample Draft Bylaws of the IETF Foundation . . . . . . . . 66
D.2.1 Article I: Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 D.2.1 Article I: Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
D.2.2 Article II: Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 D.2.2 Article II: Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
D.2.3 Article III: Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 D.2.3 Article III: Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
D.2.4 Article IV: Offices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 D.2.4 Article IV: Offices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
D.2.5 Article V: Board of Trustees . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 D.2.5 Article V: Board of Trustees . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
D.2.6 Article VI: Officers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 D.2.6 Article VI: Officers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
D.2.7 Article VII: Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 D.2.7 Article VII: Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
D.2.8 Article VIII: Dissolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 D.2.8 Article VIII: Dissolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
D.2.9 Article IX: Miscellaneous Provisions . . . . . . . . . 81 D.2.9 Article IX: Miscellaneous Provisions . . . . . . . . . 73
E. Sample Draft Call for Applications -- IETF Administrative E. Sample Draft Call for Applications -- IETF Administrative
Director . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Director . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
F. Sample Draft Request for Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 F. Sample Draft Request for Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
F.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 F.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
F.2 General Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 F.2 General Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
F.3 Requirement 1: Core Network Infrastructure . . . . . . . . 87 F.3 Requirement 1: Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
F.4 Requirement 2: Systems Administration Services . . . . . . 87 F.4 Requirement 2: Systems and Systems Administration . . . . 79
F.4.1 Core Network Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
F.4.2 Systems Administration Services . . . . . . . . . . . 80
F.5 Requirement 3: Postmaster of the IETF Administrative F.5 Requirement 3: Postmaster of the IETF Administrative
Entity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Entity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
F.6 Requirement 4: Webmaster of the IETF Administrative F.6 Requirement 4: Clerk of the IETF Administrative Entity . . 81
Entity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 F.7 Requirement 5: Webmaster of the IETF Administrative
F.7 Requirement 5: Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Entity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
F.8 Requirement 6: Clerk of the IETF Administrative Entity . . 89 F.8 Selection Criteria and Evaluation Process . . . . . . . . 81
F.9 Selection Criteria and Evaluation Process . . . . . . . . 89 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 84
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 92
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
1.1 Goals and Non-Goals 1.1 Goals and Non-Goals
1.1.1 Goals 1.1.1 Goals
Any plan for restructuring the administrative support functions of Any plan for restructuring the administrative support functions of
the IETF and for establishing an institutional foundation for those the IETF and for establishing an institutional foundation for those
administrative functions must meet three goals: administrative functions must meet three goals:
skipping to change at page 10, line 21 skipping to change at page 10, line 21
specifications for the evolution of the Internet architecture and the specifications for the evolution of the Internet architecture and the
smooth operation of the Internet."[RFC3233] A variety of institutions smooth operation of the Internet."[RFC3233] A variety of institutions
provide administrative support to the IETF community: provide administrative support to the IETF community:
o The Internet Society is "the organizational home of the Internet o The Internet Society is "the organizational home of the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF), the Internet Architecture Board Engineering Task Force (IETF), the Internet Architecture Board
(IAB), the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), and the (IAB), the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), and the
Internet Research Task Force." [www.isoc.org] [1] The Internet Internet Research Task Force." [www.isoc.org] [1] The Internet
Society is a 501(c)(3) corporation with total 2002 revenues of Society is a 501(c)(3) corporation with total 2002 revenues of
$1,695,833 and expenses of $1,681,064, of which $763,423 was $1,695,833 and expenses of $1,681,064, of which $763,423 was
allocated as program expense to support the Standards Pillar of allocated as program expense to support the Standards Pillar of
the Internet Society [ISOC-2002]. The 2004 budget for the the Internet Society.[ISOC-2002] The 2004 budget for the Internet
Internet Society is attached in Appendix B.2. The Internet Society is attached in Appendix B.2. The Internet Society and the
Society and the IETF cooperate closely in a number of areas, as IETF cooperate closely in a number of areas, as defined in
defined in [RFC2026], [RFC2028], [RFC2031], and [RFC3677]. [RFC2026], [RFC2028], [RFC2031], and [RFC3677].
o Foretec Seminars, Inc., a for-profit subsidiary of the non-profit
Corporation for National Research Initiatives (CNRI), provides a
variety of support services, including the planning of meetings
three times per year, a network presence for IETF activities, and
secretariat services such as coordination of the flow of documents
through the IESG. CNRI is a non-profit corporation registered
under section 501(c)(3) of the US tax code [IRS] and has been
providing service to the IETF since 1986 (see Section 6 for more
details on these long-term contributions to the community). CNRI
owns approximately 96% of the shares of the Delaware-chartered
Foretec Seminars, Inc [CNRI-2002].
o Since 1969, the Requests for Comments (RFC) document series and o Since 1969, the Requests for Comments (RFC) document series and
the office of the RFC Editor has been hosted at the Information the office of the RFC Editor has been hosted at the Information
Sciences Institute (ISI). The RFC Editor's office and submission Sciences Institute (ISI). The RFC Editor's office and submission
process is further defined in [RFC2223], process is further defined in [RFC2223],
[I-D.rfc-editor-rfc2223bis], and [RFC2555]. [I-D.rfc-editor-rfc2223bis], and [RFC2555].
o The IETF has delegated the parameter registration function to the o The IETF has delegated the parameter registration function to the
IANA, which is hosted at ICANN. The relationship is defined in IANA, which is hosted at ICANN. The relationship is defined in
[RFC2860]. IANA instructions for RFC authors are defined in [RFC2860]. IANA instructions for RFC authors are defined in
[RFC2434] and in [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. [RFC2434] and in [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis].
o Foretec Seminars, Inc., a for-profit subsidiary of the non-profit
Corporation for National Research Initiatives (CNRI), provides a
variety of support services, including the planning of meetings
three times per year, a network presence for IETF activities, and
secretariat services such as coordination of the flow of documents
through the IESG. CNRI is a non-profit corporation registered
under section 501(c)(3) of the US tax code [IRS] and has been
providing service to the IETF since 1986 (see Section 8 for more
details on these long-term contributions to the community). CNRI
owns approximately 96% of the shares of the Delaware-chartered
Foretec Seminars, Inc.[CNRI-2002]
For purposes of this analysis, we will examine these institutions For purposes of this analysis, we will examine these institutions
using a 4-part taxonomy of functions: using a 4-part taxonomy of functions:
o *Function 1: Administration.* This function includes program o *Function 1: Administration.* This function includes program
management tasks such as contract administration. It also management tasks such as contract administration. It also
includes any legal matters and issues of financial reporting and includes any legal matters and issues of financial reporting and
transparency. transparency.
o *Function 2: Meeting Planning.* This function includes the o *Function 2: Meeting Planning.* This function includes the
planning and management of large events such as the IETF meetings planning and management of large events such as the IETF meetings
held three times per year, as well as more specialized activities held three times per year, as well as more specialized activities
such as retreats and interim Working Group meetings. such as retreats and interim Working Group meetings.
o *Function 3: Core Information Technology.* This function includes o *Function 3: Core Information Technology.* This function includes
most of the network presence of the IETF, including the basic most of the network presence of the IETF, including the basic
provisioning of computing resources (e.g., colocation, name provisioning of computing resources (e.g., colocation, name
service, routing, transit), and core services such as mail, web service, routing, transit), and core services such as mail, web
site, rsync, and FTP. site, rsync, and ftp.
o *Function 4: Document and Information Flow.* This function o *Function 4: Document and Information Flow.* This function
includes the flow of information through the IETF process. While includes the flow of information through the IETF process. While
Function 3, Core Information Technology, provides the basic Function 3, Core Information Technology, provides the basic
platform, Function 4 uses that platform. For example, basic platform, Function 4 uses that platform. For example, basic
configuration of Apache or a mail server is a core IT function, configuration of Apache or a mail server is a core IT function,
while what goes on the web site and in particular email messages while what goes on the web site and in particular email messages
is part of the document flow. Likewise, booking an appropriate is part of the document flow. Likewise, booking an appropriate
venue is a meeting planning function, but deciding the specific venue is a meeting planning function, but deciding the specific
agenda for a meeting is part of Function 4. agenda for a meeting is part of Function 4.
skipping to change at page 11, line 45 skipping to change at page 11, line 45
years, but there is no contract or memorandum of understanding with years, but there is no contract or memorandum of understanding with
the IETF that defines the relationship. When the arrangement was the IETF that defines the relationship. When the arrangement was
first started, a few dozen people attended IETF meetings. Over time, first started, a few dozen people attended IETF meetings. Over time,
that grew to over a hundred attendees, then several hundred, and that grew to over a hundred attendees, then several hundred, and
today well over 1,000 people attend each meeting. The gentleman's today well over 1,000 people attend each meeting. The gentleman's
agreement was perfectly appropriate 18 years ago. But, [RFC3716] was agreement was perfectly appropriate 18 years ago. But, [RFC3716] was
quite clear that today it is not a sufficient basis for managing quite clear that today it is not a sufficient basis for managing
close to US$2 million in annual meeting fees collected on behalf of close to US$2 million in annual meeting fees collected on behalf of
the IETF community. the IETF community.
The lack of a specific contract between the IETF community and The lack of a specific contract with CNRI/Foretec is one of the items
CNRI/Foretec is one of the items noted in [RFC3716], however that noted in [RFC3716], however that analysis also pointed to broader
analysis also pointed to broader problems throughout the IETF problems throughout the IETF community. In general, the
community. In general, the administrative and support relationships administrative and support relationships have not been defined or
have not been defined or kept up to date. That has led to a variety kept up to date. That has led to a variety of issues observed in
of issues observed in interviews conducted for drafting this report: interviews conducted for drafting this report:
o A lack of financial information. o A lack of financial information.
o Confusion over intellectual property. o Confusion over intellectual property.
o Vague definition of the lines of authority in the contracting o Vague definition of the lines of authority in the contracting
relationship. relationship.
*Financial Information.* There is no systematic, comprehensive, or *Financial Information.* There is no systematic, comprehensive, or
timely reporting of financial information to the IETF leadership by timely reporting of financial information to the IETF leadership by
support organizations, nor from the IETF leadership to the IETF support organizations, nor from the IETF leadership to the IETF
community. community.
skipping to change at page 12, line 33 skipping to change at page 12, line 33
furnished to the IETF with an auditor's or accountant's statement. furnished to the IETF with an auditor's or accountant's statement.
*Intellectual Property.* In conducting research for this report, the *Intellectual Property.* In conducting research for this report, the
author noted a lack of clear definition of community intellectual author noted a lack of clear definition of community intellectual
property. Because relationships with support organizations are property. Because relationships with support organizations are
poorly defined, there is no clear, unambiguous paper trail that shows poorly defined, there is no clear, unambiguous paper trail that shows
that resources are held in trust for the IETF community and must be that resources are held in trust for the IETF community and must be
managed in the public interest and in a manner that is responsive to managed in the public interest and in a manner that is responsive to
the IETF community. The IETF is a public standards-making the IETF community. The IETF is a public standards-making
organization and a fundamental defining characteristic of the IETF is organization and a fundamental defining characteristic of the IETF is
the openness of the process [RFC3668]. All data, including the openness of the process.[RFC3668] All data, including databases,
databases, correspondence, minutes, and other documentation of the correspondence, minutes, and other documentation of the IETF
IETF operations or deliberations are an integral part of that operations or deliberations are an integral part of that process.
process.
*Definition of the Relationship* The third effect of a lack of a *Definition of the Relationship* The third effect of a lack of a
concrete understanding has been an apparent deterioration in the concrete understanding has been an apparent deterioration in the
working relationship between the IETF leadership and support working relationship between the IETF leadership and support
organizations. In particular, a review of correspondence shows organizations. In particular, a review of correspondence shows
numerous instances where requests for specific functions have led to numerous instances where requests for specific functions have led to
discussions over who has the right to request what. discussions over who has the right to request what.
While the lack of a formal relationship with CNRI and/or Foretec While the lack of a formal relationship with CNRI and/or Foretec
Seminars is the most pressing issue in the Administration Function, Seminars is the most pressing issue in the Administration Function,
the [RFC3716] goals of "uniform budget responsibility" and "a uniform the [RFC3716] goals of "uniform budget responsibility" and "a uniform
view of revenue sources" are not being attained. In particular: view of revenue sources" are not being attained. In particular:
o The Internet Society provides a number of administrative functions o The Internet Society provides a number of administrative functions
that go beyond the matters specified in [RFC2031]. While that that go beyond the matters specified in [RFC2031]. While that
memorandum of understanding does cover the provision of insurance, memorandum of understanding does cover the provision of insurance,
in addition to that task the Internet Society also provides in addition to that task the Internet Society also provides
discretionary funds to the IETF and IAB Chairs, and funds the discretionary funds to the IETF and IAB Chairs, and funds the
operation of the IAB. These expenditures are reported the IETF operation of the IAB. These expenditures are reported the IETF
community based on totals with no detail. In addition, the RFC community based on totals with no detail. In addition, the RFC
Editor contract is not published, although the statement of work Editor contract is not published, although the statement of work
and total expenditures are [RFC-SOW]. and total expenditures are.[RFC-SOW]
o The IANA provides parameter registry services to the IETF. While o The IANA provides parameter registry services to the IETF. While
the substance of that relationship is defined in [RFC2860], the the substance of that relationship is defined in [RFC2860], the
host institution (ICANN) does not provide financial reporting at host institution (ICANN) does not provide financial reporting at
sufficient granularity for an analyst to understand how much that sufficient granularity for an analyst to understand how much that
function costs and thus understand the level of resources being function costs and thus understand the level of resources being
used to perform that function. In addition, no public tracking of used to perform that function. In addition, no public tracking of
requests or announcements of new registrations are provided, requests or announcements of new registrations are provided,
making it difficult to estimate the workload. making it difficult to estimate the workload.
o The IETF has no uniform reporting of overall financial results. o The IETF has no uniform reporting of overall financial results.
While the IETF Chair has posted financial reports as they are made While the IETF Chair has posted financial reports as they are made
available, there is no single location where an interested member available, there is no single location where an interested member
of the community can get a fiscal picture of the operation of the of the community can get a fiscal picture of the operation of the
IETF over time, or examine a standards-compliant financial report IETF over time, or examine a standards-compliant financial report
for a particular time period [FASB-117]. for a particular time period.[FASB-117]
2.3 Function 2: Meetings 2.3 Function 2: Meetings
IETF meetings revenues have traditionally funded a wide variety of IETF meetings revenues have traditionally funded a wide variety of
non-meeting support functions, such as the document tracking, non-meeting support functions, such as the document tracking,
submission, and distribution systems. Meeting revenues make up the submission, and distribution systems. Meeting revenues make up the
largest single revenue stream for IETF support (see Appendix B.1 for largest single revenue stream for IETF support (see Appendix B.1 for
a summary of IETF financial information over the last 3 years). a summary of IETF financial information over the last 3 years).
The cost per attendee per meeting has stayed at roughly $200 and The cost per attendee per meeting has stayed at roughly $200 and
skipping to change at page 14, line 49 skipping to change at page 14, line 48
provisioned external lines and transit, managed DNS, and provided provisioned external lines and transit, managed DNS, and provided
a wide variety of other core services. At IETF60, the lead a wide variety of other core services. At IETF60, the lead
engineer for this activity was Jim Martin. engineer for this activity was Jim Martin.
o A team of volunteers organized by the University of Oregon's Video o A team of volunteers organized by the University of Oregon's Video
Lab produces audio and video streams from IETF meetings (as well Lab produces audio and video streams from IETF meetings (as well
as NANOG and a variety of other events). as NANOG and a variety of other events).
o A team of volunteers organized by xmpp.org [2] manages a series of o A team of volunteers organized by xmpp.org [2] manages a series of
XMPP[I-D.ietf-xmpp-core] servers which are used for general XMPP[I-D.ietf-xmpp-core] servers which are used for general
commentary by participants, creation of informal transcriptions commentary by participants, creation of informal transcriptions
which are archived, and for a variety of personal productivity which are archived, and for a variety of personal productivity
enhancements [Bingo]. enhancements.[Bingo]
Over the years, a variety of other efforts have sprung up and Over the years, a variety of other efforts have sprung up and
disbanded aimed at deploying leading-edge technologies in the meeting disbanded aimed at deploying leading-edge technologies in the meeting
network for interoperability testing or to familiarize attendees with network for interoperability testing or to familiarize attendees with
new protocols. Some of these activities, such as PGP key signing new protocols. Some of these activities, such as PGP key signing
parties, are ongoing. Others have been organized as one-time events. parties, are ongoing. Others have been organized as one-time events.
These ad hoc activities are an important part of IETF meetings. These ad hoc activities are an important part of IETF meetings.
These self-organized, volunteer efforts, benefit from coordination These self-organized, volunteer efforts, benefit from coordination
with formal meeting planning functions. For example, the core with formal meeting planning functions. For example, the core
skipping to change at page 16, line 7 skipping to change at page 16, line 6
for laptops. The concept of "host" (or "primary sponsor") is for laptops. The concept of "host" (or "primary sponsor") is
certainly a useful one, however instead of focusing on terminal room, certainly a useful one, however instead of focusing on terminal room,
the device could be used as a way of defraying meeting room charges, the device could be used as a way of defraying meeting room charges,
food, or other major expenses. food, or other major expenses.
One final issue should be noted that has become apparent during the One final issue should be noted that has become apparent during the
course of research for this report. There appears to be no clear course of research for this report. There appears to be no clear
guidelines on some issues related to the conduct of meetings, which guidelines on some issues related to the conduct of meetings, which
has led to disagreements between the contractor and the IETF has led to disagreements between the contractor and the IETF
leadership. Two situations in particular are apparent: leadership. Two situations in particular are apparent:
1. Signage. In most association meetings, signage is strictly 1. Signage. All hotel signage for IETF60 was in the form of the
controlled so that all sponsors and contractors (and in the case "Foretec IETF Summer Meeting." While this is perhaps a small
of the IETF, volunteers) receive appropriate billing. There is matter, it was brought up numerous times by meeting attendees.
no IETF policy on this topic. The IETF leadership should In most association meetings, signage is strictly controlled so
formulate such a policy. that all sponsors and contractors (and in the case of the IETF,
volunteers) receive appropriate billing.
2. Corollary activities. There have been several attempts to defray 2. Corollary activities. There have been several attempts to defray
meeting costs or increase profits through the use of trade meeting costs or increase profits through the use of trade
exhibitions, user groups, engineering task forces, and various exhibitions, user groups, engineering task forces, and various
other activities affiliated loosely or closely with an IETF other activities affiliated loosely or closely with an IETF
meeting. Any policy on colocation of related events at an IETF meeting. Any policy on colocation of related events at an IETF
meeting is a policy matter that should be under the direction of meeting is a policy matter that should be under the direction of
the IAB and IESG and ultimately the IETF community. The IETF the IAB and IESG and ultimately the IETF community. The IETF
leadership should formulate such a policy. leadership should formulate such a policy.
2.4 Function 3: Core Information Technology 2.4 Function 3: Core Information Technology
skipping to change at page 17, line 12 skipping to change at page 17, line 12
o http://www.rfc-editor.org/ [4] o http://www.rfc-editor.org/ [4]
o http://www.isoc.org/ [5] o http://www.isoc.org/ [5]
o http://www.ietf.org/ [6] o http://www.ietf.org/ [6]
o http://www.iab.org/ [7] o http://www.iab.org/ [7]
o http://www.irtf.org [8] o http://www.irtf.org [8]
Likewise, none of these sites is reachable using IPv6. Search Likewise, none of these sites is reachable using IPv6. Search
engines on all four sites are primitive at best, and are not engines on all four sites are primitive at best, and are not
operational in the case of www.iana.org and www.isoc.org. Few operational in the case of www.iana.org and www.isoc.org. Few
attempts are made at authentication of information, domain names, or attempts are made at authentication of information, domain names, or
applications. And, a comparison of the IETF home page from January applications. Again, these are all anecdotal examples, but they
7, 1997 and from February 15, 2004 shows that it has remained match the findings of [RFC3716] that the IETF does not use technology
virtually unchanged during that period [Wayback]. as effectively as it could.
These are all anecdotal examples, but they certainly reinforce the
findings of [RFC3716] that the IETF does not use technology as
effectively as it could.
One function that appears sorely lacking on any of these systems is One function that appears sorely lacking on any of these systems is
the provisioning of shared environments for use by working groups, the provisioning of shared environments for use by working groups,
directorates, the IAB, the IESG, and other groups. Working groups, directorates, the IAB, the IESG, and other groups. Working groups,
as part of the management of chartering activity, are able to specify as part of the management of chartering activity, are able to specify
a web site and a mailing list, but there appears to be no mechanism a web site and a mailing list, but there appears to be no mechanism
that allows a portion of the web, FTP, or other core operational that allows a portion of the web, FTP, or other core operational
servers to be delegated for use by a particular group. servers to be delegated for use by a particular group.
The result has been that working groups, teams and areas create a The result has been that working groups, teams and areas create a
skipping to change at page 18, line 51 skipping to change at page 18, line 46
o Registration and publication of liaison statements from other o Registration and publication of liaison statements from other
standards bodies and publication of liaison statements, responses standards bodies and publication of liaison statements, responses
and other communications by the IETF to Standards Development and other communications by the IETF to Standards Development
Organizations (SDOs). Organizations (SDOs).
o Support of the Nominating Committee. o Support of the Nominating Committee.
o Assisting the Meeting Planners in crafting an appropriate agenda o Assisting the Meeting Planners in crafting an appropriate agenda
for the IETF meetings, a complex task that requires a fairly for the IETF meetings, a complex task that requires a fairly
detailed knowledge of the IETF operation. detailed knowledge of the IETF operation.
A great deal of progress has been made in this area over the last A great deal of progress has been made in this area over the last
year, and more can be expected in the future with the active year, with active participation of a new Tools group and of IESG
participation of a new Tools group and of IESG members. However, members. However, there is still substantial work to make the flow
there is still substantial work to make the flow of information of information smoother and more predictable. For example, even
smoother and more predictable. For example, even though the though the Internet-Draft, RFC, and IANA processes are all closely
Internet-Draft, RFC, and IANA processes are all closely linked in linked in theory, in practice each organization currently maintains
theory, in practice each organization currently maintains their own their own tracking system. In the case of the IANA, that tracking
tracking system. In the case of the IANA, that tracking system is system is not visible outside of the organization. Thus, interaction
not visible outside of the organization. Thus, interaction among among these three bodies often relies on personal communications, and
these three bodies often relies on personal communications, and there there are fairly frequent issues of tokens being lost, or "customers"
are fairly frequent issues of tokens being lost, or "customers"
(e.g., the author of a particular draft) being unclear where in the (e.g., the author of a particular draft) being unclear where in the
process they are. process they are.
3. Recommendations for Restructuring the Administrative Framework 3. Recommendations for Restructuring the Administrative Framework
This section contains recommendations for changing how the day-to-day This section contains recommendations for changing how the day-to-day
support functions are provided. Issues such as how to contract for support functions are provided. Issues such as how to contract for
services and whether or not a full-time staff member should be hired services and whether or not a full-time staff member should be hired
are dealt with in this section. Section 4 discusses the are dealt with in this section. Section 4 discusses the
institutional framework in which these activities can be housed, institutional framework in which these activities can be housed,
including issues such as whether to incorporate the administrative including issues such as whether to incorporate the administrative
entity. entity.
3.1 Recommendation 1: Hire An Administrative Director 3.1 Recommendation 1: Hire An Administrative Director
The deliberations of the Problem Statement Working Group made it The deliberations of the Problem Statement Working Group made it
clear that the IESG and IAB are both overworked with an increasingly clear that the IESG and IAB are both overworked with an increasingly
large flow of technical issues. The group also made it clear that large flow of technical issues. The group also made it clear that
the IETF Chair and the IAB Chair should continue to be picked for the IETF Chair and the IAB Chair should continue to be picked for
their ability to lead the IETF technical activities, not solely on their ability to lead the IETF technical activities, not solely on
their ability to create a conformant income statement [RFC3774]. their ability to create a conformant income statement.[RFC3774]
One key cause of the current ambiguous management structure is the One key cause of the current ambiguous management structure is the
lack of even one full-time staff member who reports directly to the lack of even one full-time staff member who reports directly to the
IETF leadership. For example, the IETF Chair and IAB Chair attempt IETF leadership. For example, the IETF Chair and IAB Chair attempt
to prepare an annual budget and do financial reporting, but they do to prepare an annual budget and do financial reporting, but they do
so without any professional help. Among leading standards so without any professional help. Among leading standards
organizations, the IETF is alone in failing to provide any staff to organizations, the IETF is alone in failing to provide any staff to
assist the leadership in such activities. assist the leadership in such activities.
While zero staff is a non-standard way to run a standards body, a While zero staff is a non-standard way to run a standards body, a
skipping to change at page 24, line 31 skipping to change at page 24, line 31
While establishing a contract for uncontracted services is absolutely While establishing a contract for uncontracted services is absolutely
essential, some attention should also be paid to services provided by essential, some attention should also be paid to services provided by
the IANA or the RFC Editor. For example, returning to a multi-year the IANA or the RFC Editor. For example, returning to a multi-year
contract with the RFC Editor instead of the current one-year contract with the RFC Editor instead of the current one-year
extensions might provide for a larger investment in the function by extensions might provide for a larger investment in the function by
the host institution. Likewise, agreements with the Internet Society the host institution. Likewise, agreements with the Internet Society
and ICANN should be kept current. and ICANN should be kept current.
3.2.1 Details of Potential RFP Components 3.2.1 Details of Potential RFP Components
3.2.1.1 Structure of the RFP 3.2.1.1 Provision of a Basic Computing Infrastructure
Part of the philosophy of the IETF support process is to not make Part of the philosophy of the IETF support process is to not make
large organizations whose sole purpose is to support the IETF. This large organizations whose sole purpose is to support the IETF. This
is still a valid approach. is still a valid approach.
In recent years, the support for the IETF has been carried out by a In recent years, the support for the IETF has been carried out by a
small number of organizations working on fairly unconnected tasks small number of organizations working on fairly unconnected tasks
(RFC Editor at ISI, IANA at ICANN and secretariat and meeting (RFC Editor at ISI, IANA at ICANN and secretariat and meeting
services both handled at Foretec). services both handled at Foretec).
Each organization has provided its own facilities for storage, Each organization has provided its own facilities for storage,
publication, information distribution and list maintenance, as they publication, information distribution and list maintenance, as they
saw it required for their tasks. This is not necessarily an optimum saw it required for their tasks. his is not necessarily an optimum
distribution of resources. One could imagine multiple models, distribution of resources. One could imagine multiple models,
including: including:
o The IETF controlling a distributed compute platform and storage o The IETF controlling a distributed compute platform and storage
facility, with multiple organizations using that to perform work facility, with multiple organizations using that to perform work
under contract, and using each others' services when appropriate under contract, and using each others' services when appropriate
(management of the platform being of course one such contract). (management of the platform being of course one such contract).
o A distribution much like the present, where suppliers bring their o A distribution much like the present, where suppliers bring their
own resources, but with tasks distributed differently, with (for own resources, but with tasks distributed differently, with (for
instance) meeting planning and Web presence maintenance being instance) meeting planning and Web presence maintenance being
skipping to change at page 25, line 30 skipping to change at page 25, line 30
what services they would be capable of using from other providers. what services they would be capable of using from other providers.
The RFP is an information gathering tool, and will be followed by The RFP is an information gathering tool, and will be followed by
extensive negotiations and planning on how the services the IETF extensive negotiations and planning on how the services the IETF
needs can be supplied. This needs time, and because of this, sending needs can be supplied. This needs time, and because of this, sending
out an RFP earlier rather than later in the decision process will out an RFP earlier rather than later in the decision process will
provide important input used to structure the work to be performed. provide important input used to structure the work to be performed.
A draft RFP is contained in Appendix F and picks the following A draft RFP is contained in Appendix F and picks the following
decomposition: decomposition:
1. Provision of the Core Network and Systems 1. Meeting Planning
2. Systems Administration 2. Systems Administration (support infrastructure)
3. Mailing list management 3. Mailing list management
4. The Web presence 4. The Web presence
5. Meeting planning 5. The "Clerk's Office" which would be responsible for the flow of
6. The Clerk of the IETF information and administrative support for the IESG and WGs and
the Internet-Draft publishing service.
The RFP is structured so proposals may be received for one or more of The RFP is structured so proposals may be received for one or more of
the above requirements. A single bidder may elect to provide all the above requirements. A single bidder may elect to provide all
functions, one function, or some combination. The RFP is structured functions, one function, or some combination. The RFP is structured
to include a review process, and the selection criteria are based on to include a review process, and the selection criteria are based on
what is best for the IETF as a whole, as opposed to a single formula what is best for the IETF as a whole, as opposed to a single formula
such as lowest price. such as lowest price.
One important factor in all bids for supporting service will be the One important factor in all bids for supporting service will be the
degree of continuity and accountability. A "key person" principle is degree of continuity and accountability. A "key person" principle is
proposed where an individual contact is identified as responsible proposed where an individual contact is identified as responsible
manager for the function. It is this person who will give guarantees manager for the function. It is this person who will give guarantees
to the IETF for the services being available to the IETF with to the IETF for the services being available to the IETF with
adequate availability and response times, and who will take charge of adequate availability and response times, and who will take charge of
the organization that supplies the services. the organization that supplies the services.
The terms "Request for Proposals" (RFP) and "Request for Information"
(RFI) bear a brief explanation. A wide variety of organizations use
formal and open procurement processes. Some of the better known
entities, particularly government agencies, have an extremely
rigorous process defined in the RFP announcement, including metrics
for decision, such as a formula for calculating a final score based
on price and a metric such as average panel rankings on subjective
criteria such as "quality" or "responsiveness". A process this
rigorous would probably not give the IETF administrative entity much
flexibility in crafting an appropriate solution.
A "Request for Information" often suggests that a final decision will
not be based on the initial information submitted in the call for
proposals. Rather, the RFI is used to put together a short list of
potential candidates, and engage in negotiation and reformulation of
the proposals.
In either case, the term used really does not matter nearly much as
the terms specified in the call for proposals. The label is fairly
irrelevant and the real meaning is specified in the details. A call
for proposals could easily bear either label.
3.2.1.2 Core Network 3.2.1.2 Core Network
Currently, the IETF does not own any computers, colocation space, or Currently, the IETF does not own any computers, colocation space, or
transit capacity. Indeed, the IETF does not even run a web site. transit capacity. Indeed, the IETF does not even run a web site.
All of these functions are contracted out, and the contracts include All of these functions are contracted out, and the contracts include
full provisioning of the underlying infrastructure. As mentioned full provisioning of the underlying infrastructure. As mentioned
above, this is only one possible arrangement. We do not have data above, this is only one possible arrangement. We do not have data
that will allow us to know what to choose between the alternatives that will allow us to know what to choose between the alternatives
here. here.
skipping to change at page 34, line 22 skipping to change at page 33, line 22
Scenario A, but more up-front work is put into defining the Scenario A, but more up-front work is put into defining the
relationship. relationship.
These mechanisms are simply suggested directions to explore based on These mechanisms are simply suggested directions to explore based on
suggestions from early reviewers of this draft, and further suggestions from early reviewers of this draft, and further
discussions may add or remove mechanisms from this list: discussions may add or remove mechanisms from this list:
o Mechanism 1: Modify the Internet Society bylaws and articles of o Mechanism 1: Modify the Internet Society bylaws and articles of
incorporation to explicitly recognize this expanded role and to incorporation to explicitly recognize this expanded role and to
explicitly refer to process BCP RFCs such as [RFC2026], [RFC3777], explicitly refer to process BCP RFCs such as [RFC2026], [RFC3777],
[RFC2418], and their successors as the governing mechanism for the [RFC2418], and their successors as the governing mechanism for the
standards process. [anchor24] standards process.
o Mechanism 2: Re-task the three IETF appointees to the Internet o Mechanism 2: Re-task the three IETF appointees to the Internet
Society Board of Trustees so that they are representatives of the Society Board of Trustees so that they are representatives of the
IETF and can receive instructions from the IETF leadership on IETF and can receive instructions from the IETF leadership on
particular issues. [anchor25] particular issues. [[anchor24: Several reviewers have pointed out
drawbacks of this mechanism, particularly the loss of independence
of those director seats. These reviewers have pointed out that if
the IETF and IAB Chairs have seats on the board as ex-officio
members, sufficient representation of IETF interests is present.]]
o Mechanism 3: Give the IETF and IAB Chairs ex-officio, non-voting o Mechanism 3: Give the IETF and IAB Chairs ex-officio, non-voting
seats on the Internet Society Board of Trustees. seats on the Internet Society Board of Trustees.
o Mechanism 4: Grant the Administrative Director observer rights at o Mechanism 4: Grant the Administrative Director observer rights at
Internet Society Board of Trustee and Executive Committee Internet Society Board of Trustee and Executive Committee
meetings. meetings.
o Mechanism 5: Create a Memorandum of Understanding between the IETF o Mechanism 5: Create a Memorandum of Understanding between the IETF
and the Internet Society outlining operational parameters, such as and the Internet Society outlining operational parameters, such as
how contract services get managed, how financial results are how contract services get managed, how financial results are
reported, and how other services such as insurance shall function. reported, and how other services such as insurance shall function.
[anchor26] [[anchor25: Reviewers have noted that this mechanism would be
necessary under Scenario A as well.]]
o Mechanism 6: Require that Internet Society meeting notices also o Mechanism 6: Require that Internet Society meeting notices also
include notice of consideration of issues affecting the IETF. include notice of consideration of issues affecting the IETF.
This mechanism allows for community feedback on those issues prior This mechanism allows for community feedback on those issues prior
to any decisions. A variant of this mechanism would allow the IAB to any decisions. A variant of this mechanism would allow the IAB
and IESG to assert that a particular issue is critical to the and IESG to assert that a particular issue is critical to the
functioning of the IETF, thus requiring a supra-majority of the functioning of the IETF, thus requiring a supra-majority of the
Board to approve the action. Board to approve the action.
o Mechanism 7: Hold an open ISOC annual Board of Trustees meeting at o Mechanism 7: Hold an open ISOC annual Board of Trustees meeting at
an IETF plenary meeting to facilitate more community an IETF plenary meeting to facilitate more community
participation.[anchor27] participation.
o Mechanism 8: Insert a sunset review clause in any operating
agreement. A sunset review clause stipulates that after a period
of time (e.g., 3 years), a review of operations is conducted.
Often, this review consists of public input, a staff report, and a
formal decision to renew or not renew the charter for an activity
[Texas]. [anchor28]
As noted above, these mechanisms are simply "straw-men" proposed by As noted above, these mechanisms are simply "straw-men" proposed by
members of the community. Any decision to pursue this Scenario, as members of the community. Any decision to pursue this Scenario, as
with all other Scenarios, will require a careful look at the specific with all other Scenarios, will require a careful look at the specific
language and provisions needed to meet the overall goals set by the language and provisions needed to meet the overall goals set by the
community. As noted in Section 1.3, this would likely be in the form community. As noted in Section 1.3, this would likely be in the form
of a process BCP RFC. of a process BCP RFC.
The intended benefits of this Scenario are as in Scenario A, with the The intended benefits of this Scenario are as in Scenario A, with the
additional intended benefit of bringing the IETF community and ISOC additional intended benefit of bringing the IETF community and ISOC
skipping to change at page 39, line 12 skipping to change at page 38, line 10
Internet Society even if the incorporation were elsewhere, for Internet Society even if the incorporation were elsewhere, for
example the ISOC Geneva office). A variety of other options were example the ISOC Geneva office). A variety of other options were
examined as states of incorporation, including [Delaware] and examined as states of incorporation, including [Delaware] and
[California], but there appeared to be no significant advantages. In [California], but there appeared to be no significant advantages. In
particular, there are no significant differences in issues such as particular, there are no significant differences in issues such as
director liability that would make incorporating outside the place of director liability that would make incorporating outside the place of
actual domicile attractive. actual domicile attractive.
4.4.1.2 Sample Draft Core Principles 4.4.1.2 Sample Draft Core Principles
[Ed.: This section intends to state basic principles of establishment [ed.: This section intends to state basic principles of establishment
and governance, suitable for publication, after considerable and governance, suitable for publication, after considerable
discussion, as a procedural Best Current Practice document.] discussion, as a procedural Best Current Practice document.]
4.4.1.2.1 Sample Draft Principles of Establishment and Governance 4.4.1.2.1 Sample Draft Principles of Establishment and Governance
The following principles are proposed for the establishment and The following principles are proposed for the establishment and
governance of an administrative support organization in support of governance of an administrative support organization in support of
the IETF under Scenario C, and are based on the Sample Draft Articles the IETF under Scenario C, and are based on the Sample Draft Articles
of Incorporation attached in Appendix D.1 and the Sample Draft Bylaws of Incorporation attached in Appendix D.1 and the Sample Draft Bylaws
attached in Appendix D.2: attached in Appendix D.2:
skipping to change at page 39, line 44 skipping to change at page 38, line 42
aspects of how we make our standards are defined in the aspects of how we make our standards are defined in the
procedural Best Current Practice RFC series, which will be procedural Best Current Practice RFC series, which will be
explicitly referenced in the organization documents of the IETF explicitly referenced in the organization documents of the IETF
Foundation. Foundation.
5. The Board of Trustees shall consist of a fixed, odd number of 5. The Board of Trustees shall consist of a fixed, odd number of
members, initially set at 7 members. members, initially set at 7 members.
6. The annual meeting of the Board of Trustees of the IETF 6. The annual meeting of the Board of Trustees of the IETF
Foundation shall be announced on the IETF mailing list at least Foundation shall be announced on the IETF mailing list at least
30 days before it occurs and must be held at a regular IETF 30 days before it occurs and must be held at a regular IETF
meeting. This meeting shall be open to IETF attendees and meeting. This meeting shall be open to IETF attendees and
minutes shall be promptly published. minutes shall be promptly posted on-line.
7. The Board of Trustees shall appoint a Secretary and a Treasurer, 7. The Board of Trustees shall appoint a Secretary and a Treasurer,
who need not be members of the Board of Trustees. The who need not be members of the Board of Trustees. The
Administrative Director of the IETF Foundation shall provide Administrative Director of the IETF Foundation shall provide
staff support to the Board of Trustees. staff support to the Board of Trustees.
8. The Board of Trustees shall be composed to strike a balance 8. The Board of Trustees shall be composed to strike a balance
between outside and "inside" directors. It is proposed that the between outside and "inside" directors. It is proposed that the
IETF and IAB chairs hold voting, ex-officio seats, and that IETF and IAB chairs hold voting, ex-officio seats, and that
mechanisms such as the Nominating Committee and the appointment mechanisms such as the Nominating Committee and the appointment
of certain seats by the Internet Society fulfill the outside of certain seats by the Internet Society fulfill the outside
director obligations. director obligations.
skipping to change at page 40, line 32 skipping to change at page 39, line 30
For position-based appointments such as the IETF Chair, the Trustee For position-based appointments such as the IETF Chair, the Trustee
would serve concurrent with their normal appointment. For non would serve concurrent with their normal appointment. For non
position-based appointments, a term proposed for the nominated position-based appointments, a term proposed for the nominated
positions is three years with staggered appointments. However, the positions is three years with staggered appointments. However, the
nominating body might have the power to change their appointee during nominating body might have the power to change their appointee during
their term. their term.
All members of the Board of Trustees IETF Foundation are subject to All members of the Board of Trustees IETF Foundation are subject to
the same recall procedures in effect for the IETF leadership such as the same recall procedures in effect for the IETF leadership such as
members of the IAB and IESG. [anchor34] members of the IAB and IESG. [[anchor31: Mike St. Johns comments
that use of the Nomcom and the recall procedure are both
inappropriate as they are tailored towards selection of and recall of
technical leadership, which is not necessarily appropriate for the
fiscal, legal, and administrative skill sets needed in a board for
the Foundation. --Mike St. Johns]]
4.4.1.2.2 Sample Draft Principles of Operation of a Potential IETF 4.4.1.2.2 Sample Draft Principles of Operation of a Potential IETF
Foundation Foundation
[Ed.: This section intends to state basic principles of establishment [ed.: This section intends to state basic principles of establishment
and governance, suitable for publication, after considerable and governance, suitable for publication, after considerable
discussion, as a procedural Best Current Practice document. This discussion, as a procedural Best Current Practice document. This
section is very tentative and contains principles that are used to section is very tentative and contains principles that are used to
draft bylaws and articles of corporation, samples of which are shown draft bylaws and articles of corporation, samples of which are shown
in Appendix D.1 and Appendix D.2.] in Appendix D.1 and Appendix D.2.]
The following are some general principles for the operation of the The following are some general principles for the operation of the
IETF Foundation: IETF Foundation:
1. The IETF Foundation shall employ a Administrative Director of the 1. The IETF Foundation shall employ a Administrative Director of the
IETF Foundation, who shall be hired by the Board of Trustees with IETF Foundation, who shall be hired by the Board of Trustees with
skipping to change at page 41, line 35 skipping to change at page 41, line 5
of the Internet Society. For instance, the foundation might pursue of the Internet Society. For instance, the foundation might pursue
direct contributions from industry instead of relying on a unified, direct contributions from industry instead of relying on a unified,
ISOC-based fund raising effort as outlined in Scenario C. ISOC-based fund raising effort as outlined in Scenario C.
Needless to say, direct solicitation of funds would require great Needless to say, direct solicitation of funds would require great
care to isolate the IETF standards process from funding agencies so care to isolate the IETF standards process from funding agencies so
that there can be no question of undue influence. In Scenarios A that there can be no question of undue influence. In Scenarios A
through C, this isolation of process from funding is provided by the through C, this isolation of process from funding is provided by the
Internet Society. Internet Society.
4.6 Discussion of Unincorporated Associations
While many non-profit organizations choose to incorporate, this is
not the only institutional structure available. In the U.S., as in
several other countries, there is a concept of an unincorporated
association, a legal structure that allows groups of individuals to
form an association that has certain powers under the law, including
in some cases limitations of liability and the ability to hold real
property and make agreements. [anchor38]
The concept of the unincorporated association is important for two
reasons:
1. "The IETF" is a nebulous concept since the community has chosen
not to incorporated, define membership, or perform other actions
that give the community "standing" in the legal world. But, to
the extent that "the IETF" does exist, it is an unincorporated
association. For example, [RFC2860] creates a Memorandum of
Understanding between ICANN and "the Internet Engineering Task
Force, the unincorporated association operating under such name
that creates Internet Standards and related documents."
2. In addition, a formal registration of an unincorporated
association, as discussed in this section, is a legal mechanism
that could be used to create an IETF Administrative Entity and is
thus relevant to the discussion of Scenarios A through D.
The concept of unincorporated association has sprung up in case law
over many years, as groups of people formed social clubs, veterans
groups, and other communities of interest. Inevitably, these
communities ran into conflicts and the courts were forced to face
questions such as whether these communities could be sued, hold
property, or make contracts.
This section does not attempt to discuss the standing of "the IETF"
or "the IETF community" as it presently stands under case law
governing unincorporated associations. Instead, this section
describes a series of fairly recent developments in United States
case law that are relevant to the discussion of the legal form that
an IETF Administrative Entity might take.
In the United States, a Uniform Unincorporated Nonprofit Association
Act was passed in 1996 by the Uniform Law Commissioners [UUNAA]. The
uniform law has since been enacted by Delaware and 9 other states, as
well as the District of Columbia [ULC]. Unincorporated nonprofit
associations can be granted federal exemption from taxes under
section 501(c)(3) of the IRS Code if they meet two tests:
1. *The Organizational Test.* The basic chartering document must
state that the organization is "organized and operated
exclusively" for an exempt purpose and that "no part of the net
income of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder
or individual." In addition, upon dissolution, any assets must
be distributed only for one or more exempt purposes (or to the
federal government). [IRS-Org]
2. *The Operational Test.* The actual operation of the organization
must meet the requirements of the Internal Revenue Service and
must fall within the limits and purposes set out in the
chartering document.
The organization test is thus theory, the operational test practice,
and the two must achieve the same purposes.
The unincorporated association structure is also available in other
countries, such as the United Kingdom[Charity], but this analysis is
confined to the U.S. structure.
Some examples of unincorporated associations include:
o For 180 years, from the founding until 1971, the New York Stock
Exchange was an unincorporated association. In 1971, the Exchange
shifted to a nonprofit corporate structure as part of a governance
reform that gave greater voice to non-owners, such as listed
companies and investors. The incorporation was concurrent with
other changes, such as an increased role for professional
management and other mechanisms suited to the "unique role and
governance structure" of the Exchange [NYSE].
o Founded in 1878, the American Bar Association functioned
exclusively as an unincorporated association until 1972, at which
time a parallel incorporated entity was chartered under Illinois
law, also called the American Bar Association [ABA].
o The World Science Fiction Society (WSFS) has "for over 50 years
... annually franchised local groups to run the World Science
Fiction Convention (typical attendance over 5000) and oversee the
selection of the Hugo Award winners."[Eastlake]
o Many labor unions are organized as unincorporated associations
(see [Busby]) as well as church groups, homeowner associations,
scouting troops, parent teacher associations, and many others.
An association is defined in a chartering document, typically labeled
a "Constitution" or "Articles of Association." The association must
have two or more members who are "joined by mutual consent for a
common purpose." Members are defined as persons (which includes
individuals, but also any other legal entity such as a corporation or
government department) who "may participate in the selection of
persons authorized to manage the affairs of the nonprofit association
or in the development of policy of the nonprofit association."
Mechanisms such as randomly selected nominating committees appear to
adequately satisfy the "may participate in the selection"
requirement.
The unincorporated association is not as broad as other forms, such
as an incorporated association. However, the unincorporated
association does have several rights, such as:
1. The ability to hold property which is separate from its members.
This includes the ability to have a bank account
2. A nonprofit association is a legal entity separate from its
members for the purposes of determining and enforcing rights,
duties, and liabilities in contract and tort. This also results
in the ability to contract for insurance coverage, such as
general liability, general commercial liability, errors &
omissions (E&O), or directors and officers (D&O) policies.
3. The ability to employ staff.
The limitations on liability are important changes over older common
law, which held individual members liable for the actions of the
association. Needless to say, individual members can still be held
liable for their own actions, but under the uniform law, they cannot
be held liable for the actions of the association merely by being a
member. Likewise, under the uniform law, the association has
standing in court and can sue or be sued.
The unincorporated association, under the uniform law, thus provides
many of the benefits of the corporate form. It can be considered, to
some extent, as a sort of "corporation-lite" [CLRC].
5. Future Work 5. Future Work
5.1 Short-Term 5.1 Short-Term
This report outlines some fundamental decisions facing the IETF This report outlines some fundamental decisions facing the IETF
community about how administrative support functions should be community about how administrative support functions should be
procured and what institutional framework they should be housed in. procured and what institutional framework they should be housed in.
If a consensus is reached on a direction to move on these key If a consensus is reached on a direction to move on these key
decisions, a number of short-term tasks will be required: decisions, a number of short-term tasks will be required:
1. Formulation of a budget for 2005, including a cash flow analysis. 1. Formulation of a budget for 2005, including a cash flow analysis.
skipping to change at page 46, line 4 skipping to change at page 42, line 4
In considering the future, it is often worth looking at the past. In considering the future, it is often worth looking at the past.
Edwin T. Layton, Jr., in his 1986 study of the rise (and fall) of Edwin T. Layton, Jr., in his 1986 study of the rise (and fall) of
standards bodies in 1900's, tells of an interesting group, the standards bodies in 1900's, tells of an interesting group, the
Institute of Radio Engineers (IRA). Founded in 1912, the IRA was Institute of Radio Engineers (IRA). Founded in 1912, the IRA was
different from other professional bodies of the time, with a focus on different from other professional bodies of the time, with a focus on
individual instead of corporate membership, an adherence to individual instead of corporate membership, an adherence to
engineering excellence, and, despite being a predominantly American engineering excellence, and, despite being a predominantly American
body, insisting that the word "American" not be added to the IRE's body, insisting that the word "American" not be added to the IRE's
name as a way of emphasizing the international nature of their name as a way of emphasizing the international nature of their
pursuits [Layton]. The IRA was founded in reaction to pursuits.[Layton] The IRA was founded in reaction to dissatisfaction
dissatisfaction with a more formal body of the time, the American with a more formal body of the time, the American Institute of
Institute of Electrical Engineers (AIEE). The IRA became known for Electrical Engineers (AIEE). The IRA became known for pioneering
pioneering work in standards area such as FM and commercial work in standards area such as FM and commercial black-and-white and
black-and-white and color television. Although the IRA was one of color television. Although the IRA was one of the smaller standards
the smaller standards bodies, it was one of the most effective bodies, it was one of the most effective.[Hoffman] In 1963, the IRA
[Hoffman]. In 1963, the IRA merged with the AIEE to become the IEEE. merged with the AIEE to become the IEEE.
Layton's study of professional societies and standards bodies in the Layton's study of professional societies and standards bodies in the
engineering profession from early the 1900 to the 1960s is highly engineering profession from early the 1900 to the 1960s is highly
instructive, particularly the way different groups dealt with the instructive, particularly the way different groups dealt with the
tensions between the role of participants as individuals engineers tensions between the role of participants as individuals engineers
versus their other roles as corporate employees or representatives of versus their other roles as corporate employees or representatives of
countries. The long-term relevance of the IETF is directly tied to countries. The long-term relevance of the IETF is directly tied to
the ability of the community to focus on core values such as "rough the ability of the community to focus on core values such as "rough
consensus and running code"[RFC1958] and an avoidance of consensus and running code"[RFC1958] and an avoidance of
entanglements at layers 8-10 of the OSI Reference Model [OSI]. entanglements at layers 8-10 of the OSI Reference Model.[OSI]
As Thomas Huxley once commented in describing the conduct of the As Thomas Huxley once commented in describing the conduct of the
affairs of the Royal Society, "our business was (precluding matters affairs of the Royal Society, "our business was (precluding matters
of theology and state affairs) to discourse and consider of of theology and state affairs) to discourse and consider of
philosophical enquiries, and such as related thereunto."[Huxley] The philosophical enquiries, and such as related thereunto."[Huxley] The
IETF can certainly learn much from an examination of it's own guiding IETF can certainly learn much from an examination of it's own guiding
principles and by examining the history of other SDOs such as the principles and by examining the history of other SDOs such as the
Royal Society and the Institute of Radio Engineers. Royal Society and the Institute of Radio Engineers.
6. Acknowledgment of CNRI Contribution to the IETF Community 6. IANA Considerations
[RFC2434] states each Internet-Draft should contain an "IANA
Considerations" section. [RFC3716] noted that a frequent problem for
the IANA is documents that do not contain such a section, thus
requiring a full scan of the document.
This submission contains no specific modifications to existing
registries or creation of new registries. However, the submission
contains a number of sections that may impact the overall operation
of the IANA. A full scan of the document is thus recommended.
7. Security Considerations
Improper formulation of the legal framework underlying the IETF may
expose the institution and individuals in leadership positions to
potential legal risks. Any such risk under this plan appears to be
equivalent to the risk faced by the community under the current legal
framework. This risk is further mitigated by a thorough review by
legal counsel, and by use of insurance coverage.
The legal exposure is best minimized by a careful adherence to our
procedures and processes, as defined by the Best Current Practice
Series. A carefully stated process, such as the BCP documents that
govern the selection of leadership positions and define the standards
process are the best insurance against legal exposure, provided care
is taken to stick to the process standards that have been set.
Adherence to a public rule book and a fully open process are the most
effective mechanisms the IETF community can use.
Improper management controls and procedures or other imprudent fiscal
or administrative practices could expose the IETF to a risk of
insolvency. Careful selection of trustees, a process of budget
approval, and a methodical system of fiscal controls are necessary to
minimize this risk.
8. Acknowledgment of CNRI Contribution to the IETF Community
As this plan proposes a transition from the past to the future, the As this plan proposes a transition from the past to the future, the
author feel it is essential to acknowledge the enormous contributions author feel it is essential to acknowledge the enormous contributions
made to the IETF and the Internet by the Corporation for National made to the IETF and the Internet by the Corporation for National
Research Initiatives (CNRI) and their Chairman, CEO, and President, Research Initiatives (CNRI) and their Chairman, CEO, and President,
Dr. Robert E. Kahn. Dr. Robert E. Kahn.
Dr. Kahn's pioneering early leadership in the evolution of the Dr. Kahn's pioneering early leadership in the evolution of the
Internet is well-known, including the seminal paper on the Internet is well-known, including the seminal paper on the
Transmission Control Protocol,[Cerf_Kahn] his key operational role in Transmission Control Protocol,[Cerf and Kahn] his key operational
engineering the early Internet (see, e.g., [RFC0371]), and his role in engineering the early Internet (see, e.g., [RFC0371]), and
leadership of the vastly influential DARPA Information Processing his leadership of the vastly influential DARPA Information Processing
Techniques Office (IPTO), where he initiated a billion-dollar Techniques Office (IPTO), where he initiated a billion-dollar
Strategic Computing Program which was responsible for funding, Strategic Computing Program which was responsible for funding,
guiding, and encouraging technology that makes up much of today's guiding, and encouraging technology that makes up much of today's
infrastructure. infrastructure.
Perhaps less well-known or appreciated is the contribution that Dr. Perhaps less well-known or appreciated is the contribution that Dr.
Kahn and CNRI have made to the evolution of the IETF. Since 1987, Kahn and CNRI have made to the evolution of the IETF. Since 1987,
CNRI has housed the IETF Secretariat, supporting 56 IETF meetings CNRI has housed the IETF Secretariat, supporting 56 IETF meetings
with over 55,000 total attendees, not to mention over 30,000 with over 55,000 total attendees, not to mention over 30,000
Internet-Drafts processed, several thousand teleconferences hosted, Internet-Drafts processed, several thousand teleconferences hosted,
skipping to change at page 48, line 5 skipping to change at page 46, line 5
A number of CNRI and Foretec staff have formed the secretariat over A number of CNRI and Foretec staff have formed the secretariat over
the years. These people have all worked long and hard and, for many the years. These people have all worked long and hard and, for many
IETF participants, these staff have been instrumental in making the IETF participants, these staff have been instrumental in making the
IETF an effective forum for the development of Internet standards and IETF an effective forum for the development of Internet standards and
technology. They deserve our sincere and continuing thanks. technology. They deserve our sincere and continuing thanks.
As the IETF has scaled, we have continued to rely on CNRI to provide As the IETF has scaled, we have continued to rely on CNRI to provide
a base of stability. As the IETF passes the age of 18, it is time a base of stability. As the IETF passes the age of 18, it is time
for the IETF to take responsibility for its own affairs. for the IETF to take responsibility for its own affairs.
7. Acknowledgment of Contributions and Reviews 9. Acknowledgment of Contributions and Reviews
A number of people contributed their time in telephone interviews, A number of people contributed their time in telephone interviews,
email exchanges, and reviews of the draft. These exchanges resulted email exchanges, and reviews of the draft. These exchanges resulted
in many useful suggestions. Needless to say, our acknowledgment of in many useful suggestions. Needless to say, our acknowledgment of
their contribution should not in any way be used to necessarily infer their contribution should not in any way be used to necessarily infer
support for anything contained herein. These individuals include: support for anything contained herein. These individuals include:
Bernard Aboba, Harald Alvestrand, Rob Austein, Fred Baker, Bob Bernard Aboba, Harald Alvestrand, Fred Baker, Bob Braden, Scott
Braden, Scott Bradner, Brian Carpenter, David Clark, Jorge Contreras, Bradner, Brian Carpenter, David Clark, Jorge Contreras, Dave Crocker,
Dave Crocker, Steve Crocker, Joao Damas, Leslie Daigle, Lynn DuVal, Steve Crocker, Joao Damas, Leslie Daigle, Lynn DuVal, Patrik
Patrik Falstrom, Bill Fenner, Ted Hardie, Bob Hinden, Paul Hoffman, Falstrom, Bill Fenner, Ted Hardie, Bob Hinden, Paul Hoffman, Geoff
Geoff Huston, David Kessens, Robert Kahn, Daniel Karrenberg, John Huston, Mike St. Johns, David Kessens, Robert Kahn, Daniel
Klensin, Rebecca Malamud, Allison Mankin, Jordi Palet Martinez, Karrenberg, John Klensin, Rebecca Malamud, Allison Mankin, Thomas
Thomas Narten, Jun Murai, Thomas Narten, Eric Rescorla, Pete Resnick, Narten, Jun Murai, Thomas Narten, Eric Rescorla, Pete Resnick, Joyce
Joyce Reynolds, Lynn St. Amour, Mike St. Johns, Paul Vixie, Reynolds, Lynn St. Amour, Mike St. Johns, Paul Vixie, Margaret
Margaret Wasserman, and Bert Wijnen. The author apologizes for any Wasserman, and Bert Wijnen. The author apologizes for any names
names inadvertently omitted. inadvertently omitted.
This document was created with "xml2rfc"<http://xml.resource.org/>
using the format specified in [RFC2629]. PDF renditions of the
document were created with Julian Reschke's XSLT style sheets
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629xslt.zip> and diffs from
prior draft were produced using Henrik Levkowetz's "rfcdiff" tool
<http://ietf.levkowetz.com/tools/rfcdiff/>.
8. IANA Considerations
[RFC2434] states each Internet-Draft should contain an "IANA
Considerations" section. [RFC3716] noted that a frequent problem for
the IANA is documents that do not contain such a section, thus
requiring a full scan of the document.
This submission contains no specific modifications to existing
registries or creation of new registries. However, the submission
contains a number of sections that may impact the overall operation
of the IANA. A full scan of the document is thus recommended.
9. Security Considerations
Improper formulation of the legal framework underlying the IETF may
expose the institution and individuals in leadership positions to
potential legal risks. Any such risk under this plan appears to be
equivalent to the risk faced by the community under the current legal
framework. This risk is further mitigated by a thorough review by
legal counsel, and by use of insurance coverage.
The legal exposure is best minimized by a careful adherence to our
procedures and processes, as defined by the Best Current Practice
Series. A carefully stated process, such as the BCP documents that
govern the selection of leadership positions and define the standards
process are the best insurance against legal exposure, provided care
is taken to stick to the process standards that have been set.
Adherence to a public rule book and a fully open process are the most
effective mechanisms the IETF community can use.
Improper management controls and procedures or other imprudent fiscal This document was created with "xml2rfc" as specified in [RFC2629].
or administrative practices could expose the IETF to a risk of
insolvency. Careful selection of trustees, a process of budget
approval, and a methodical system of fiscal controls are necessary to
minimize this risk.
10. References 10. References
10.1 Normative References 10.1 Normative References
[RFC1958] Carpenter, B., "Architectural Principles of the Internet", [RFC1958] Carpenter, B., "Architectural Principles of the Internet",
RFC 1958, June 1996. RFC 1958, June 1996.
[RFC2014] Weinrib, A. and J. Postel, "IRTF Research Group Guidelines [RFC2014] Weinrib, A. and J. Postel, "IRTF Research Group Guidelines
and Procedures", BCP 8, RFC 2014, October 1996. and Procedures", BCP 8, RFC 2014, October 1996.
skipping to change at page 52, line 36 skipping to change at page 48, line 36
[RFC3774] Davies, E., "IETF Problem Statement", RFC 3774, May 2004. [RFC3774] Davies, E., "IETF Problem Statement", RFC 3774, May 2004.
[RFC3777] Galvin, J., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and [RFC3777] Galvin, J., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and
Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall
Committees", BCP 10, RFC 3777, June 2004. Committees", BCP 10, RFC 3777, June 2004.
10.2 Informative References 10.2 Informative References
[.] Malamud, C., Ed., "IETF Administrative Support Functions", [.] Malamud, C., Ed., "IETF Administrative Support Functions",
draft-malamud-consultant-report-01 (work in progress), draft-malamud-consultant-report-00 (work in progress),
September 2004, <https://public.resource.org/adminrest/>. August 2004, <https://public.resource.org/adminrest/>.
[ABA] American Bar Association, "Constitution and Bylaws of the
American Bar Association and Rules of Procedure of the
House of Delegates", August 1994,
<http://www.abanet.org/leadership/constitutionandbylaws.pd
f>.
[Bingo] Anonymous, "Buzzword Bingo", 1996, [Bingo] Anonymous, "Buzzword Bingo", 1996,
<http://hacks.mit.edu/Hacks/by_year/1996/gore/>. <http://hacks.mit.edu/Hacks/by_year/1996/gore/>.
[Busby] U.S. Supreme Court, "Busby v. Electric Utilities Employees
Union", 323 U.S. 72, December 1944,
<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us
&vol=323&invol=72>.
[CLRC] California Law Revision Commission, "Uniform
Unincorporated Nonprofit Association Act: Governance
Issues", Staff Memorandum 2002-59, Study B-501, October
2002, <http://www.clrc.ca.gov/pub/2002/MM02-59.pdf>.
[CNRI-2002] [CNRI-2002]
CNRI, "Form 990 - Return of Organization Exempt from CNRI, "Form 990 - Return of Organization Exempt from
Income Tax - 2002", EIN 52-1447747, November 2003. Income Tax - 2002", EIN 52-1447747, November 2003.
[California] [California]
State of California, "California Corporations Code", State of California, "California Corporations Code",
Undated, Undated,
<http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection= <http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=corp>
corp>. .
[Cerf_Kahn] [Cerf and Kahn]
Cerf, V. and R. Kahn, "A Protocol for Packet Network Cerf, V. and R. Kahn, "A Protocol for Packet Network
Intercommunication", IEEE Trans. on Comm., Vol. COM-23, Intercommunication", IEEE Trans. on Comm., Vol. COM-23,
pp. 637-648, May 1974. pp. 637-648, May 1974.
[Charity] Charity Commission for England and Wales, "GD3 - Model
Constitution for a Charitable Unincorporated Association",
July 2004,
<http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/publications/pdfs/gd
3text.pdf>.
[Delaware] [Delaware]
State of Delaware, "Title 8. Corporations -- Chapter 1. State of Delaware, "Title 8. Corporations -- Chapter 1.
General Corporation Law -- Subchapter 1. Formation", General Corporation Law -- Subchapter 1. Formation",
Undated, Undated,
<http://www.delcode.state.de.us/title8/c001/sc01/index.htm <http://www.delcode.state.de.us/title8/c001/sc01/index.htm#TopOfPage>
#TopOfPage>. .
[Eastlake]
Eastlake, D., "ISOC etc. (ignore if you don't like lengthy
legal flames)", IETF Mailing List, February 1995,
<http://www.netsys.com/ietf/1995/0484.html>.
[FASB-117] [FASB-117]
Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), "Financial FASB, "Financial Statements of Not-For-Profit
Statements of Not-For-Profit Organizations", FASB 117, Organizations", FASB 117, June 1993,
June 1993,
<htttp://www.fasb.org/st/summary/stsum117.shtml>. <htttp://www.fasb.org/st/summary/stsum117.shtml>.
[Hoffman] IEEE Center for the History of Electrical Engineering, [Hoffman] IEEE Center for the History of Electrical Engineering,
"The Origins of the IEEE", 1984, "The Origins of the IEEE", 1984,
<http://www.ieee.org/organizations/history_center/historic <http://www.ieee.org/organizations/history_center/historical_articles/history_of_ieee.html>
al_articles/history_of_ieee.html>. .
[Huxley] Huxley, T., "On the Advisableness of Improving Natural [Huxley] Huxley, T., "On the Advisableness of Improving Natural
Knowledge (A Lay Sermon Delivered in St. Martin's Hall)", Knowledge (A Lay Sermon Delivered in St. Martin's Hall)",
Project Gutenberg THX1410, Fortnightly Review 3 (1866): Project Gutenberg THX1410, Fortnightly Review 3 (1866):
626-37, January 1866, 626-37, January 1866,
<http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/cgi-bin/pg-html/mirr <http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/cgi-bin/pg-html/mirror/pg/etext01/thx1410.txt>
or/pg/etext01/thx1410.txt>. .
[I-D.alvestrand-ietf-mission] [I-D.alvestrand-ietf-mission]
Alvestrand, H., "A Mission Statement for the IETF", Alvestrand, H., "A Mission Statement for the IETF",
draft-alvestrand-ietf-mission-02 (work in progress), June draft-alvestrand-ietf-mission-02 (work in progress), June
2004. 2004.
[I-D.daigle-adminrest] [I-D.daigle-adminrest]
Daigle, L., "A Proposal for IETF Administrative Daigle, L., "A Proposal for IETF Administrative
Restructuring", draft-daigle-adminrest-00 (work in Restructuring", draft-daigle-adminrest-00 (work in
progress), February 2004. progress), February 2004.
[I-D.ietf-problem-process]
Davies, E. and J. Hofmann, "IETF Problem Resolution
Process", draft-ietf-problem-process-04 (work in
progress), January 2004.
[I-D.ietf-xmpp-core] [I-D.ietf-xmpp-core]
Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence
Protocol (XMPP): Core", draft-ietf-xmpp-core-24 (work in Protocol (XMPP): Core", draft-ietf-xmpp-core-24 (work in
progress), May 2004. progress), May 2004.
[I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis] [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]
Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", IANA Considerations Section in RFCs",
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-00 (work in draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-00 (work in
progress), August 2004. progress), August 2004.
[I-D.rfc-editor-rfc2223bis] [I-D.rfc-editor-rfc2223bis]
Reynolds, J. and R. Braden, "Instructions to Request for Reynolds, J. and R. Braden, "Instructions to Request for
Comments (RFC) Authors", draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-08 Comments (RFC) Authors", draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-07
(work in progress - do not cite as a normative reference), (work in progress - do not cite as a normative reference),
July 2004, August 2003,
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rfc-editor-rfc2 <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-07.txt>
223bis-08.txt>. .
[ICAR] The IETF, "Charter of the Improved Cross-Area Review [ICAR] The IETF, "Charter of the Improved Cross-Area Review
(icar) Working Group", June 2004, (icar) Working Group", June 2004,
<http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/icar-charter.html>. <http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/icar-charter.html>.
[IETF-2001] [IETF-2001]
Alvestrand, H., "The Financials of the IETF -- 2001", Alvestrand, H., "The Financials of the IETF -- 2001",
February 2003, February 2003,
<http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/chair/financials.html>. <http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/chair/financials.html>.
[IETF-2002] [IETF-2002]
Alvestrand, H., "The Financials of the IETF -- 2002", July Alvestrand, H., "The Financials of the IETF -- 2002", July
2003, 2003,
<http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/chair/financials-2002.html> <http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/chair/financials-2002.html>.
.
[IETF-2003] [IETF-2003]
Alvestrand, H., "The Financials of the IETF -- 2003", May Alvestrand, H., "The Financials of the IETF -- 2003", May
2004, 2004,
<http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/chair/financials-2003.html> <http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/chair/financials-2003.html>.
.
[IETF-2004] [IETF-2004]
Alvestrand, H., "The IETF Budget -- 2004", May 2004, Alvestrand, H., "The IETF Budget -- 2004", May 2004,
<http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/chair/budget-2004.html>. <http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/chair/budget-2004.html>.
[IRS] U.S. Code, "Title 26, Sec. 501: Exemption from tax on [IRS] U.S. Code, "Title 26, Sec. 501: Exemption from tax on
corporations, certain trusts, etc.", Undated, corporations, certain trusts, etc.", Undated,
<http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/501.html>. <http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/501.html>.
[IRS-Org] Internal Revenue Service, "The Organizational Test for
Under IRC 501(c)(3)", August 2003,
<http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicc85.pdf>.
[ISOC-2002] [ISOC-2002]
Internet Society, "Form 990 - Return of Organization Internet Society, "Form 990 - Return of Organization
Exempt from Income Tax - 2002", EIN 52-1650477, October Exempt from Income Tax - 2002", EIN 52-1650477, October
2003. 2003.
[ISOC-2004] [ISOC-2004]
Internet Society, "37th Board of Trustees meeting of the Internet Society, "37th Board of Trustees meeting of the
Internet Society", Resolution 3-20, December 2003, Internet Society", Resolution 3-20, December 2003, <http:/
<http://www.isoc.org/isoc/general/trustees/mtg37.shtml>. /www.isoc.org/isoc/general/trustees/mtg37.shtml>.
[ISOC-Gov]
Internet Society, "Procedures for selecting Trustees",
Board Resolution 02-2, 2002.
[ISOC-Gov2]
Internet Society, "Resolution 01-10 Procedures for
Nomination and Election of Trustees by Individual
Members", Board Resolution 01-10, 2001.
[Layton] Layton, E., "The Revolt of the Engineers", The John [Layton] Layton, E., "The Revolt of the Engineers", The John
Hopkins University Press, ISBN 0-8018-3287-X, 1986. Hopkins University Press, ISBN 0-8018-3287-X, 1986.
[NEWTRK] The IETF, "Charter of the New IETF Standards Track [NEWTRK] The IETF, "Charter of the New IETF Standards Track
Discussion (newtrk) Working Group", June 2004, Discussion (newtrk) Working Group", June 2004,
<http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/newtrk-charter.html>. <http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/newtrk-charter.html>.
[NYSE] Governance Committee of the NYSE Board, "Governance of the
New York Stock Exchange", May 2003,
<http://www.nyse.com/pdfs/governancewhitepaper.pdf>.
[OSI] Wikepedia, "Open Systems Interconnection Reference Model", [OSI] Wikepedia, "Open Systems Interconnection Reference Model",
ISO/IEC 7498-1, August 2004, ISO/IEC 7498-1, August 2004,
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_seven-layer_model>. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_seven-layer_model>.
[RFC-SOW] Internet Society, "Statement of Work--RFC Editor", [RFC-SOW] Internet Society, "Statement of Work--RFC Editor",
Undated, Undated,
<http://www.isoc.org/standards/rfceditor/sow.shtml>. <http://www.isoc.org/standards/rfceditor/sow.shtml>.
[RFC0015] Carr, C., "Network subsystem for time sharing hosts", RFC [RFC0015] Carr, C., "Network subsystem for time sharing hosts", RFC
15, September 1969. 15, September 1969.
[RFC0371] Kahn, R., "Demonstration at International Computer [RFC0371] Kahn, R., "Demonstration at International Computer
Communications Conference", RFC 371, July 1972. Communications Conference", RFC 371, July 1972.
[RFC2134] ISOC Board of Trustees, "ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF
INTERNET SOCIETY", RFC 2134, April 1997.
[RFC2135] ISOC Board of Trustees, "Internet Society By-Laws", RFC
2135, April 1997.
[RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629, [RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
June 1999. June 1999.
[RFC3844] Davies, E. and J. Hofmann, "IETF Problem Resolution
Process", RFC 3844, August 2004.
[Texas] Texas Sunset Advisory Commission, "Guide to the Texas
Sunset Process", December 2003,
<http://www.sunset.state.tx.us/guide.pdf>.
[ULC] Uniform Law Commissioners, "UUNAA Legislative Fact Sheet",
2004,
<http://www.nccusl.org/Update/uniformact_factsheets/unifor
macts-fs-uunaa.asp>.
[UUNAA] Uniform Law Commissioners, "Uniform Unincorporated
Nonprofit Association Act (1996)", National Conference of
Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, 1996,
<http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/fnact99/1990s/uunaa96.ht
m>.
[Virginia] [Virginia]
State of Virginia, "Title 13.1: Corporations, Limited State of Virginia, "Title 13.1: Corporations, Limited
Liability Companies, Business Trusts", Undated, Liability Companies, Business Trusts", Undated,
<http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+TOC13 <http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+TOC1301000>
01000>. .
[Wayback] Internet Archive, "Wayback Machine: Comparison of
www.ietf.org for Jan. 7, 1997 and Feb. 15, 2004",
September 2004,
<http://docucomp.archive.org/cgi-bin2/dc_compare.cgi?urls=
http%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F19970107171109%2Fhttp
%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2F&urls=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org
%2Fweb%2F20040215054430%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Finde
x.html>.
URIs URIs
[1] <http://www.isoc.org/standards> [1] <http://www.isoc.org/standards>
[2] <http://www.xmpp.org/> [2] <http://www.xmpp.org/>
[3] <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iana.org%2F [3] <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iana.org%2F&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=%28detect+automatically%29>
&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=%28detect+automatic
ally%29>
[4] <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor. [4] <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2F&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=%28detect+automatically%29>
org%2F&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=%28detect+aut
omatically%29>
[5] <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.isoc.org%2F [5] <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.isoc.org%2F&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=%28detect+automatically%29>
&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=%28detect+automatic
ally%29>
[6] <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2F [6] <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2F&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=%28detect+automatically%29>
&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=%28detect+automatic
ally%29>
[7] <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iab.org%2F> [7] <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iab.org%2F>
[8] <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irtf.org%2F [8] <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irtf.org%2F&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=%28detect+automatically%29>
&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=%28detect+automatic
ally%29>
[12] <http://www.ietf.org/PASTMEETINGS/IETF-60b.html>
[13] <http://www.ietf.org/PASTMEETINGS/IETF-59b.html>
[14] <http://www.ietf.org/PASTMEETINGS/IETF-58b.html>
[15] <http://www.ietf.org/PASTMEETINGS/IETF-57b.html>
[16] <http://www.ietf.org/PASTMEETINGS/IETF-56B.html>
[17] <http://www.state.va.us/cgi-bin/scc-clerkdl.pl?scc819&Articles_
of_Incorporation_-_Nonstock_Corporation>
Editorial Comments
[anchor24] Editor: It has been noted that any such action would, of
course, require the full approval and cooperation of the
Internet Society Board. The fundamental chartering
document for ISOC are the articles of incorporation,
which require 4/5 approval of the board for changes
[RFC2134]. The bylaws, as published in [RFC2135] and
periodically amended through board resolutions, requires
a 2/3 vote for certain changes to the bylaws. Governance
is specified in general terms in [RFC2135] and further
specified in a series of board resolutions. Composition
of and the procedures for selection of members of the
board is specified in Board Resolution 02-2 [ISOC-Gov]
which is "generally harmonious" with [ISOC-Gov2], which
is currently suspended.
[anchor25] Editor: Several reviewers have pointed out drawbacks of [9] <http://www.ietf.org/PASTMEETINGS/IETF-60b.html>
this mechanism, particularly the loss of independence of
those director seats. These reviewers have pointed out
that if the IETF and IAB Chairs have seats on the board
as ex-officio members, sufficient representation of IETF
interests is present.
[anchor26] Editor: Reviewers have noted that this mechanism would be [10] <http://www.ietf.org/PASTMEETINGS/IETF-59b.html>
necessary under Scenario A as well.
[anchor27] Editor: Several reviewers have noted that the ISOC board [11] <http://www.ietf.org/PASTMEETINGS/IETF-58b.html>
does in fact already conduct open meetings. This
mechanism simply suggests more IETF participation in
those meetings as a way of drawing the community
together.
[anchor28] Editor: This suggestion came from Marshall T. Rose. [12] <http://www.ietf.org/PASTMEETINGS/IETF-57b.html>
[anchor34] Mike St. Johns: Use of the Nomcom and the recall [13] <http://www.ietf.org/PASTMEETINGS/IETF-56B.html>
procedure are both inappropriate as they are tailored
towards selection of and recall of technical leadership,
which is not necessarily appropriate for the fiscal,
legal, and administrative skill sets needed in a board
for the Foundation.
[anchor38] Editor: Several members of the community, including Rob [14] <http://www.state.va.us/cgi-bin/scc-clerkdl.pl?scc819&Articles_of_Incorporation_-_Nonstock_Corporation>
Austein, Brian Carpenter, Donald Eastlake, Robert Kahn,
and Patrice Lyons suggested an analysis of the
"unincorporated association" mechanism as an alternative
to formal incorporation.
Author's Address Author's Address
Carl Malamud (editor) Carl Malamud (editor)
Memory Palace Press Memory Palace Press
PO Box 300 PO Box 300
Sixes, OR 97476 Sixes, OR 97476
US US
EMail: carl@media.org EMail: carl@media.org
URI: http://infinite.simians.net/
Appendix A. Consulting Contract Appendix A. Consulting Contract
AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTING SERVICES
Contract between CARL MALAMUD AND THE INTERNET SOCIETY Contract between CARL MALAMUD AND THE INTERNET SOCIETY
*Contract:* *Contract:*
Carl Malamud (hereafter known as the Consultant) agrees to provide Carl Malamud (hereafter known as the Consultant) agrees to provide
consulting services to the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), consulting services to the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF),
skipping to change at page 67, line 20 skipping to change at page 59, line 20
| CNRI/Foretec | | | | | | CNRI/Foretec | | | | |
| "Direct" | | | | | | "Direct" | | | | |
| Expenses | | | | | | Expenses | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| CNRI/Foretec | 604,990 | 608,805 | 641,939 | 504,560 | | CNRI/Foretec | 604,990 | 608,805 | 641,939 | 504,560 |
| Overhead Charge | | | | | | Overhead Charge | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| CNRI/Foretec | 30,000 | -- | -- | -- | | CNRI/Foretec | 30,000 | -- | -- | -- |
| "Performance | | | | | | "Performance | | | | |
| Bonus" For Staff | | | | | | Bonus" | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| Total | 2,523,124 | 2,445,675 | 2,139,125 | 1,886,260 | | Total | 2,124,523 | 2,445,675 | 2,139,125 | 1,886,260 |
| CNRI/Foretec | | | | | | CNRI/Foretec | | | | |
| Expenses | | | | | | Expenses | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| TOTAL EXPENSES | 3,058,659 | 2,996,556 | 2,753,816 | 2,549,830 | | TOTAL EXPENSES | 2,660,058 | 2,996,556 | 2,753,816 | 2,549,830 |
| (ISOC and CNRI) | | | | | | (ISOC and CNRI) | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| SURPLUS/DEFICIT | 94,750 | (165,318) | (141,204) | (59,979) | | SURPLUS/DEFICIT | 94,750 | (165,318) | (141,204) | (59,979) |
+------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+ +------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
Notes: Notes:
[1] Actual results based on unaudited reports. Source: [IETF-2001] [1] Actual results based on unaudited reports. Source: [IETF-2001]
[2] Actual results based on unaudited reports. Source: [IETF-2002] [2] Actual results based on unaudited reports. Source: [IETF-2002]
[3] Actual results based on unaudited reports. Source: [IETF-2003] [3] Actual results based on unaudited reports. Source: [IETF-2003]
skipping to change at page 68, line 4 skipping to change at page 60, line 4
purpose of IETF support. The figures in this line equal their purpose of IETF support. The figures in this line equal their
corresponding cells for Total ISOC Expenditures. corresponding cells for Total ISOC Expenditures.
[6] ICANN does not report expenses broken down by functional area, [6] ICANN does not report expenses broken down by functional area,
nor are the direct and indirect costs associated with the IETF nor are the direct and indirect costs associated with the IETF
parameter registries available. We thus value this contribution parameter registries available. We thus value this contribution
as "priceless" for purposes of this analysis. as "priceless" for purposes of this analysis.
B.2 Internet Society 2004 Budget Summary B.2 Internet Society 2004 Budget Summary
The Internet Society 2004 Budget was approved at a Special The Internet Society 2004 Budget was approved at a Special
Teleconference Meeting of the Internet Society Board of Trustees Teleconference Meeting of the Internet Society Board of
[ISOC-2004]. Trustees.[ISOC-2004] All figures are in U.S. dollars.
(US$)
+------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+ +------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| | Standards | Education | Public | Total | | | Standards | Education | Public | Total |
| | Pillar | Pillar | Policy | | | | Pillar | Pillar | Policy | |
| | | | Pillar | | | | | | Pillar | |
+------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+ +------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| REVENUE | | | | | | REVENUE | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| Organizational | 1,050,000 | 242,000 | 200,000 | 1,492,000 | | Organizational | 1,050,000 | 242,000 | 200,000 | 1,492,000 |
| and Platinum | | | | | | and Platinum | | | | |
skipping to change at page 70, line 11 skipping to change at page 62, line 11
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| SURPLUS | 36,567 | 32,241 | 33,464 | 102,272 | | SURPLUS | 36,567 | 32,241 | 33,464 | 102,272 |
+------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+ +------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
Appendix C. 10-Year Meeting Attendance Summary Appendix C. 10-Year Meeting Attendance Summary
+------------+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ +------------+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| IETF | DATE | Location | Host | Attendees | | IETF | DATE | Location | Host | Attendees |
+------------+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ +------------+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 60th IETF | 01/08/2004 | San Diego, | -- | 1511 | | 60th IETF | 01/08/2004 | San Diego, | -- | 1511 |
| [12] | | CA, USA | | | | [9] | | CA, USA | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| 59th IETF | 29/02/2004 | Seoul, | -- | 1390 | | 59th IETF | 29/02/2004 | Seoul, | -- | 1390 |
| [13] | | South Korea | | | | [10] | | South Korea | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| 58th IETF | 09/11/2003 | Minneapolis | -- | 1233 | | 58th IETF | 09/11/2003 | Minneapolis | -- | 1233 |
| [14] | | , MN, USA | | | | [11] | | , MN, USA | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| 57th IETF | 13/07/2003 | Vienna, | -- | 1304 | | 57th IETF | 13/07/2003 | Vienna, | -- | 1304 |
| [15] | | Austria | | | | [12] | | Austria | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| 56th IETF | 16/03/2003 | San | -- | 1679 | | 56th IETF | 16/03/2003 | San | -- | 1679 |
| [16] | | Francisco, | | | | [13] | | Francisco, | | |
| | | California, | | | | | | California, | | |
| | | USA | | | | | | USA | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| 55th IETF | 17/11/2002 | Atlanta, | Nokia | 1570 | | 55th IETF | 17/11/2002 | Atlanta, | Nokia | 1570 |
| | | Georgia, | | | | | | Georgia, | | |
| | | USA | | | | | | USA | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| 54th IETF | 14/07/2002 | Yokohama, | Fujitsu; | 1885 | | 54th IETF | 14/07/2002 | Yokohama, | Fujitsu; | 1885 |
| | | Japan | The WIDE | | | | | Japan | The WIDE | |
| | | | Project | | | | | | Project | |
skipping to change at page 73, line 10 skipping to change at page 65, line 10
| | | | | | | | | |
| Average Food & | $150 | $138 | $122 | | Average Food & | $150 | $138 | $122 |
| Beverage Per | | | | | Beverage Per | | | |
| Attendee | | | | | Attendee | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| Average Total | $206 | $190 | $193 | | Average Total | $206 | $190 | $193 |
| Direct Meeting | | | | | Direct Meeting | | | |
| Cost Per | | | | | Cost Per | | | |
| Attendee [1] | | | | | Attendee [1] | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| Total | $440 | $479 | $507 | | Total | $370 | $479 | $507 |
| CNRI/Foretec | | | | | CNRI/Foretec | | | |
| Secretariat | | | | | Secretariat | | | |
| Expenses | | | | | Expenses | | | |
| Divided by | | | | | Divided by | | | |
| Number of | | | | | Number of | | | |
| Meeting | | | | | Meeting | | | |
| Attendees | | | | | Attendees | | | |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+ +----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
Notes: Notes:
skipping to change at page 74, line 16 skipping to change at page 66, line 16
IETF Foundation IETF Foundation
D.1 Sample Draft Articles of Incorporation D.1 Sample Draft Articles of Incorporation
This appendix contains standard, pro-forma Articles of Incorporation. This appendix contains standard, pro-forma Articles of Incorporation.
Note well that tax lawyers often make significant alterations to Note well that tax lawyers often make significant alterations to
standard Articles as they consider a 501(c)(3) application. They are standard Articles as they consider a 501(c)(3) application. They are
included here merely as a sample for illustrative purposes only. included here merely as a sample for illustrative purposes only.
'Commonwealth of Virginia -- State Corporation Commission'| 'Articles 'Commonwealth of Virginia -- State Corporation Commission'| 'Articles
of Incorporation -- Virginia Nonstock Corporation'| Form SCC819, of Incorporation -- Virginia Nonstock Corporation'| Form SCC819, 07/
07/03 [17] 03 [14]
------ ------
The undersigned, pursuant to Chapter 10 of Title 13.1 of the Code of The undersigned, pursuant to Chapter 10 of Title 13.1 of the Code of
Virginia, [Virginia] state(s) as follows: Virginia, [Virginia] state(s) as follows:
1. The name of the corporation is The IETF Foundation. 1. The name of the corporation is The IETF Foundation.
2. The corporation shall have no members. 2. The corporation shall have no members.
3. The Trustees of the corporation shall be elected or appointed as 3. The Trustees of the corporation shall be elected or appointed as
specified in Article IV (Appendix D.2.5) of the Bylaws. specified in Article IV (Appendix D.2.5) of the Bylaws.
4. Name and agent: 4. Name and agent:
A. The name of the corporation's initial registered agent is: A. The name of the corporation's initial registered agent is:
skipping to change at page 83, line 8 skipping to change at page 75, line 8
deemed to refer to such Code or Chapter as now in force or hereafter deemed to refer to such Code or Chapter as now in force or hereafter
amended; (3) the particular sections of the Internal Revenue Code or amended; (3) the particular sections of the Internal Revenue Code or
such Code shall be deemed to refer to similar or successor provisions such Code shall be deemed to refer to similar or successor provisions
hereafter adopted; and (4) to the Request for Comment Series shall be hereafter adopted; and (4) to the Request for Comment Series shall be
deemed to refer to the Request for Comment Series as they are now in deemed to refer to the Request for Comment Series as they are now in
force or hereafter amended. force or hereafter amended.
Appendix E. Sample Draft Call for Applications -- IETF Administrative Appendix E. Sample Draft Call for Applications -- IETF Administrative
Director Director
The IETF Administrative Entity is seeking a highly capable individual The IETF is seeking a highly capable individual to serve as
to serve as Administrative Director. You will report to the IETF Administrative Director. You will report to the IETF Chair and be
Chair and be accountable to IETF community. This is a highly visible accountable to IETF Community. This is a highly visible and very
and very demanding job. You will be expected to: demanding job. You will be expected to:
o Serve as the day-to-day chief operating officer of the IETF, o Serve as the day-to-day chief operating officer of the IETF,
managing a number of contractors and working with a number of managing a number of contractors and working with a number of
volunteers. volunteers.
o Provide primary support for budgeting and financial reporting o Provide primary support for budgeting and financial reporting
processes. processes.
o Serve as the primary staff resource for the governing body of the o Serve as the primary staff resource for the governing body of the
administrative entity for the IETF. administrative entity for the IETF.
o Work with your contractors and members of the IETF community to o Work with your contractors and members of the IETF community to
provide adequate support and planning for 3 IETF meetings provide adequate support and planning for 3 IETF meetings
annually, and for frequent meetings and teleconferences of the annually, and for frequent meetings and teleconferences of the
skipping to change at page 85, line 10 skipping to change at page 77, line 10
The list of applicants will not be posted publicly, but will be The list of applicants will not be posted publicly, but will be
reviewed in confidence by members of the evaluation committee, the reviewed in confidence by members of the evaluation committee, the
IAB, and the IESG. IAB, and the IESG.
Appendix F. Sample Draft Request for Proposals Appendix F. Sample Draft Request for Proposals
F.1 Introduction F.1 Introduction
The IETF Administrative Entity is soliciting proposals for the The IETF Administrative Entity is soliciting proposals for the
provision of computing and networking requirements, as detailed in provision of five requirements, as detailed in this Request for
this Request for Proposals ("Proposals"). Proposals from any Proposals ("Proposals"). Proposals from any individual person or
individual person or persons or commercial or non-commercial vendor persons or commercial or non-commercial vendor ("Vendor") are
("Vendor") are welcome. welcome.
Proposals must be received in written electronic form no later than Proposals must be received in written electronic form no later than
[date]. Extensions may be granted solely in the discretion of the [date]. Extensions may be granted solely in the discretion of the
IETF Administrative Entity. Each Proposal, together with all IETF Administrative Entity. Each Proposal, together with all
supporting documentation, should be delivered to the following supporting documentation, should be delivered to the following
address: address:
[URI/ADDRESS] [URI/ADDRESS]
Any inquiries regarding this Request must be submitted in written Any inquiries regarding this Request must be submitted in written
skipping to change at page 86, line 25 skipping to change at page 78, line 25
reviewed by a panel of experts drawn from the IETF community. A list reviewed by a panel of experts drawn from the IETF community. A list
of reviewers will be made available. The IETF Administrative Entity of reviewers will be made available. The IETF Administrative Entity
will notify Vendors of their selection following receipt and will notify Vendors of their selection following receipt and
consideration of all Proposals. The IETF Administrative Entity will consideration of all Proposals. The IETF Administrative Entity will
attempt to make its selection(s) by [date], but shall have full attempt to make its selection(s) by [date], but shall have full
discretion to make a decision earlier or later than this date. discretion to make a decision earlier or later than this date.
F.2 General Provisions F.2 General Provisions
The following provisions apply to all bidders: The following provisions apply to all bidders:
1. A response may be submitted for one or more of the 6 listed 1. A response may be submitted for one or more of the 5 listed
support requirements. If response addresses more than one of the support requirements. If response addresses more than one of the
listed support requirements, the proposal should be written to listed support requirements, the proposal should be written to
clearly separate costs by area. The IETF Administrative Entity clearly separate costs by area. The IETF Administrative Entity
reserves the right to accept only a partial proposal. reserves the right to accept only a partial proposal.
2. Key Person Principle: Each requirement requires the designation 2. Key Person Principle: Each requirement requires the designation
of one individual as the "Key Person" in your response. That of one individual as the "Key Person" in your response. That
person will be the individual accountable to the IETF. The IETF person will be the individual accountable to the IETF. The IETF
Administrative Entity will require a binding key personnel clause Administrative Entity will require a binding key personnel clause
in the contract. Any change in the Key Person will require prior in the contract. Any change in the Key Person will require prior
approval. The IETF Administrative Entity will also require a approval. The IETF Administrative Entity will also require a
skipping to change at page 87, line 5 skipping to change at page 79, line 5
4. The IETF Administrative Entity encourages bids from individuals 4. The IETF Administrative Entity encourages bids from individuals
as well as public and private institutions as long as the above as well as public and private institutions as long as the above
conditions are met. You should submit a detailed work history of conditions are met. You should submit a detailed work history of
each individual, personal references, and a detailed description each individual, personal references, and a detailed description
of any sub-contractual arrangements you have put in place to of any sub-contractual arrangements you have put in place to
assist you. assist you.
5. Appropriate insurance and other mechanisms to minimize the 5. Appropriate insurance and other mechanisms to minimize the
liability of the IETF Administrative Entity should be discussed liability of the IETF Administrative Entity should be discussed
in your proposal. in your proposal.
F.3 Requirement 1: Core Network Infrastructure F.3 Requirement 1: Meetings
We are looking for creative proposals from experienced professionals
to organize and support the meetings of the IETF.
You will work with the Administrative Director of the IETF and the
IETF leadership to organize the three annual meetings of the IETF.
Based on current practice, you should expect 1-2 of those meetings to
be in the United States and 1-2 of those meetings to be in other
countries, though this may change based on the requirements of the
IETF. We expect approximately 1500 attendees per meeting, though in
the past this number has approached 3,000 based on the location of
the meeting and the state of the economy.
You should have very strong experience in meeting planning,
particularly working meetings with large numbers of participants.
You should be intimately familiar with the details of booking
appropriate venues, working with hotel and conference center staff,
and providing clear and concise communications with meeting
attendees.
Your proposal should detail the mechanisms you would use to provide a
simple registration and payment procedure for attendees. You will be
able to draw on webmaster and sysadmin support for the IETF, for
example, if you would like to provide a secure payment mechanism on
the IETF web site. Your proposal should also detail how you will
provide additional resources on-site (e.g., staffing a registration
desk and other requirements that require additional people).
As part of this function, you will work with Local Hosts (when
available), who provide a sophisticated network infrastructure to
support the meeting, as well as a team of volunteers who provide
additional terminal room support, real-time audio and video streaming
from the meeting and other functions.
F.4 Requirement 2: Systems and Systems Administration
This requirement consists of two functions. You may bid on one or
both of these functions, which include:
1. Provision of a core network infrastructure.
2. Systems Administration.
F.4.1 Core Network Infrastructure
[Ed. This section will contain service level specifications. E.g., [Ed. This section will contain service level specifications. E.g.,
core bandwidth requirements, CPU capacity, disk space, and other core bandwidth requirements, CPU capacity, disk space, and other
variables. It will also contain core specifications, such as variables. It will also contain core specifications, such as
routing, DNS, and other services.] routing, DNS, and other services.]
F.4 Requirement 2: Systems Administration Services F.4.2 Systems Administration Services
[Ed. This section will contain the description for the Systems [Ed. This section will contain the description for the Systems
Administration function, including such tasks as keeping key software Administration function, including such tasks as keeping key software
subsystems such as Apache installed and up-to-date, support for subsystems such as Apache installed and up-to-date and support for
users, operating system upgrades, and other similar tasks.] users.]
F.5 Requirement 3: Postmaster of the IETF Administrative Entity F.5 Requirement 3: Postmaster of the IETF Administrative Entity
The Postmaster of the IETF Administrative Entity is responsible for The Postmaster of the IETF Administrative Entity is responsible for
the functioning and archiving of numerous mailing lists maintained by the functioning and archiving of numerous mailing lists maintained by
the IETF and for archiving specific IETF-related mailing lists the IETF and for archiving specific IETF-related mailing lists
maintained by others. Note that the archives of most IETF mailing maintained by others. Note that the archives of most IETF mailing
lists are public and the bidder must describe how such archives will lists are public and the bidder must describe how such archives will
be accessed by the public. be accessed by the public.
skipping to change at page 88, line 9 skipping to change at page 81, line 5
o Move the IETF mail handling onto an existing well-provisioned o Move the IETF mail handling onto an existing well-provisioned
infrastructure that you are responsible for. infrastructure that you are responsible for.
o Provide mail services on machines that are maintained by the IETF. o Provide mail services on machines that are maintained by the IETF.
Your bid should clearly explain what tools you will use, the types of Your bid should clearly explain what tools you will use, the types of
interfaces you will provide to list maintainers and participants, and interfaces you will provide to list maintainers and participants, and
you would handle issues such as spam. You should also be very clear you would handle issues such as spam. You should also be very clear
in your proposal about your understanding of the role and duties of in your proposal about your understanding of the role and duties of
the postmaster. the postmaster.
F.6 Requirement 4: Webmaster of the IETF Administrative Entity F.6 Requirement 4: Clerk of the IETF Administrative Entity
This requirement is for general high-level administrative support for
the day-to-day functioning of the IETF. A specialized subfunction in
the Clerk's office is the processing of the Internet-Draft submission
queue. Such documents must conform to requirements for
Internet-Drafts as defined by the IETF.
In addition to processing the Internet-Draft queue, you will work
with the Administrative Director of the IETF to help make the
organization function smoothly on a day-to-day basis.
[Ed. More detail to be filled in here by a transition team.]
F.7 Requirement 5: Webmaster of the IETF Administrative Entity
This task has the responsibility for the look and feel of the IETF This task has the responsibility for the look and feel of the IETF
network presence, particularly the web site. A series of support network presence, particularly the web site. A series of support
contracts will be available to help support this function. contracts will be available to help support this function.
In addition, this task has responsibility to provide overall support, In addition, this task has responsibility to provide overall support,
in cooperation with the sysadmin and other contractors, to a variety in cooperation with the sysadmin and other contractors, to a variety
of working groups, directorates, and other activities that require a of working groups, directorates, and other activities that require a
workspace. workspace.
Your proposal must demonstrate that you are experienced at producing Your proposal must demonstrate that you are experienced at producing
highly standards-conformant and functional network presences and highly standards-conformant and functional network presences and
supporting a large and diverse community of users. This is a highly supporting a large and diverse community of users. This is a highly
hands-on task. hands-on task.
F.7 Requirement 5: Meetings F.8 Selection Criteria and Evaluation Process
We are looking for creative proposals from experienced professionals
to organize and support the meetings of the IETF.
You will work with the Administrative Director of the IETF and the
IETF leadership to organize the three annual meetings of the IETF.
Based on current practice, you should expect 1-2 of those meetings to
be in the United States and 1-2 of those meetings to be in other
countries, though this may change based on the requirements of the
IETF. We expect approximately 1500 attendees per meeting, though in
the past this number has approached 3,000 based on the location of
the meeting and the state of the economy.
You should have very strong experience in meeting planning,
particularly working meetings with large numbers of participants.
You should be intimately familiar with the details of booking
appropriate venues, working with hotel and conference center staff,
and providing clear and concise communications with meeting
attendees.
Your proposal should detail the mechanisms you would use to provide a
simple registration and payment procedure for attendees. You will be
able to draw on webmaster and sysadmin support for the IETF, for
example, if you would like to provide a secure payment mechanism on
the IETF web site. Your proposal should also detail how you will
provide additional resources on-site (e.g., staffing a registration
desk and other requirements that require additional people).
As part of this function, you will work with Local Hosts (when
available), who provide a sophisticated network infrastructure to
support the meeting, as well as a team of volunteers who provide
additional terminal room support, real-time audio and video streaming
from the meeting and other functions.
F.8 Requirement 6: Clerk of the IETF Administrative Entity
This requirement is for general high-level administrative support for
the day-to-day functioning of the IETF. You will work with the
Administrative Director of the IETF to help make the organization
function smoothly on a day-to-day basis.
The tasks that are encompassed in this function include:
o Supporting the working group charter process, which includes
processing the initial charter, rechartering, milestone
management, and closing of the working group.
o Publication of Internet-Drafts. It is assumed that current
efforts to automate the submission process will be successful,
alleviating much of the manual effort that this function currently
has.
o Document tracking, including a ticket-system-based response to
document and working group management problems, announcements of
last calls, and a variety of other functions.
o Managing IESG meetings, including scheduling, creation of the
agenda, and collecting the minutes, as well as the creation and
long-term archiving of IETF meeting proceedings.
o Handling the Intellectual Property Rights disclosure process (a
process which is presently undergoing automation).
o Publication of official actions, such as document approvals,
including communication of such status to groups such as the RFC
Editor.
o Registration and publication of liaison statements from other
standards bodies and publication of liaison statements, responses
and other communications by the IETF to Standards Development
Organizations (SDOs).
o Support of the Nominating Committee.
o Assisting the Meeting Planners in crafting an appropriate agenda
for the IETF meetings, a complex task that requires a fairly
detailed knowledge of the IETF operation.
[Ed. More detail to be filled in here by a transition team.]
F.9 Selection Criteria and Evaluation Process
All proposals will be evaluated using a process that consists of the All proposals will be evaluated using a process that consists of the
following steps: following steps:
1. An evaluation committee will be formed by the IETF and IAB 1. An evaluation committee will be formed by the IETF and IAB
Chairs, and will include the Administrative Director of the IETF Chairs, and will include the Administrative Director of the IETF
Administrative Entity. Administrative Entity.
2. The evaluation committee will perform an initial evaluation of 2. The evaluation committee will perform an initial evaluation of
submitted responses. submitted responses.
3. A dialogue will be started with selected responses. 3. A dialogue will be started with selected responses.
4. The IETF will decide on the initial best candidate. 4. The IETF will decide on the initial best candidate.
skipping to change at page 91, line 11 skipping to change at page 83, line 11
technical smarts, and a variety of other factors. Note well that the technical smarts, and a variety of other factors. Note well that the
IETF Administrative Entity will not decide on price alone. Overall IETF Administrative Entity will not decide on price alone. Overall
benefit to the IETF community will be the prime consideration. benefit to the IETF community will be the prime consideration.
Index Index
F F
functions 6, 6, 10, 11, 13, 16, 17 functions 6, 6, 10, 11, 13, 16, 17
M M
mechanisms 34, 34, 34, 34, 34, 34, 34, 34 mechanisms 33, 33, 33, 33, 33, 33, 33
O O
opinions 16, 23 opinions 16, 23
options 1, 7, 9, 22, 22, 24, 27, 38 options 1, 7, 9, 22, 22, 24, 27, 37
P P
pillars 6, 6, 6 pillars 6, 6, 6
R R
recommendations 8, 20, 21, 21, 28, 28, 37 recommendations 8, 20, 21, 21, 27, 28, 36
S S
strategies 22, 22, 22 strategies 22, 22, 22
Intellectual Property Statement Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.12, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/