Internet DRAFT - draft-hall-iasa20-workshops-report
draft-hall-iasa20-workshops-report
Network Working Group J. Hall
Internet-Draft CDT
Intended status: Informational A. Mahoney
Expires: September 14, 2017 March 13, 2017
Report from the IASA 2.0 Virtual Workshops
draft-hall-iasa20-workshops-report-00
Abstract
This is the Workshop Report for the IETF Administrative Support
Activity 2.0 (IASA 2.0) Virtual Workshops, held on 28 February 2017
at 1100 UT and 1600 UT. The original IETF Administrative Support
Activity (IASA) was created ten years ago, and since has been subject
to some reflection. In the intervening years, there has been
considerable change in the necessary tasks of IETF administration and
in the world around the IETF, and in how the IETF raises funds and
finances its work. The IASA 2.0 process seeks to address which
administrative arrangements will best support the IETF going forward.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 14, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
Hall & Mahoney Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Report from the IASA 2.0 Virtual Workshops March 2017
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology and Organizational Structure . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Organizational Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Issues Raised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Structural and Organizational Issues . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Funding Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Transparency and Communication Issues . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4. Staff and Volunteer Resource Issues . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.5. Internal IAOC Organizational Issues . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix A. Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.1. Participants in the 1100 UTC virtual workshop . . . . . . 15
A.2. Participants in the 1600 UTC virtual workshop . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Introduction
The IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) arrangements were
created more than ten years ago, when the IETF initially took charge
of its own administration [RFC4071]. In the intervening years, there
has been considerable change in the tasks of IETF administration and
in the world around the IETF [I-D.daigle-iasa-retrospective] and in
how the IETF raises funds and finances its work
[I-D.arkko-ietf-finance-thoughts].
In 2016, IETF leadership began a discussion to review and possibly
rework administrative arrangements at the IETF, dubbed the IETF
Administrative Support Activity 2.0 project [Arkko-2016]. The IASA
2.0 process seeks to address what administrative arrangements that
will best support the IETF going forward.
To make changes, the IETF community first needs to understand the
challenges and/or missed opportunities within the current system. A
number of areas face challenges: structural and organizational issues
regarding the roles and interfaces between the IETF, the IAOC, ISOC,
the IESG, and contractors; the IETF funding model; transparency and
communication issues among the many IASA moving pieces; availability
Hall & Mahoney Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Report from the IASA 2.0 Virtual Workshops March 2017
of staff, contractor, and volunteer resources compared to the
administrative workload; and internal IAOC organizational issues.
To get input from the community to identify challenges and
opportunities in these and other areas, the IETF leadership set up
two virtual workshops open to everyone in the IETF community and to
people who are or have worked in IETF-administrative roles. These
virtual workshops were held on 28 February 2017 at 11:00 UTC and
16:00 UTC. The agenda, slides, and minutes from the two meetings are
available at the workshop proceedings [IASA20-proceedings].
Recordings of the two workshops are also available
[IASA20-1100UT-rec] [IASA20-1600UT-rec].
At these workshops, the participants provided their experiences and
suggestions. Proposed changes and solutions will be discussed and
dealt with in a later phase of the IASA 2.0 project.
2. Terminology and Organizational Structure
2.1. Terminology
The following acronyms will be heavily used in the discussion below:
o IASA - IETF Administrative Support Activity - An organized
activity that provides administrative support for the IETF, the
IAB and the IESG.
o IAOC - IETF Administrative Oversight Committee - A largely IETF-
selected committee that oversees and directs IASA. Accountable to
the IETF community.
o ISOC - The Internet Society - An organization that assists the
IETF with legal, administrative, and funding tasks.
o IAD - IETF Administrative Director - The sole staff member
responsible for carrying out the work of the IASA. An ISOC
employee.
o IETF Trust - Acquires, maintains, and licenses intellectual and
other property used in connection with the administration of the
IETF. Same composition as IAOC.
2.2. Organizational Structure
In terms of organizational arrangements, the workshop chairs provided
a diagram that captured many of the organizational relationships
among various entities [IASA-Org-Chart]. The IAOC relies on a number
of committees to get its work done - Finance, Legal Management,
Hall & Mahoney Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Report from the IASA 2.0 Virtual Workshops March 2017
Meetings, Technology Management, and RFP Committee in addition to any
ad hoc committees. Participants noted that the connections between
these committees and the IAD are not reflected in the diagram.
Some workshop participants felt that the diagram generally reflected
reality and that it illustrated the large number of moving pieces
involved. A workshop participant said that there are a lot of moving
parts compared to 11 years ago when the IASA was formed, as IASA now
encompasses certain functions that it did not at that time, such as
the Secretariat and the RFC Production Center.
3. Issues Raised
The IASA 2.0 Virtual Workshops focused on the areas below.
3.1. Structural and Organizational Issues
Slide 10 of the slide deck [IASA2-Workshop-Slides] discussed the
following structural issues between the IETF, the IAOC, ISOC, the
IESG, and contractors:
o The line between the IETF and ISOC is not organizationally clear-
cut, which has led to issues around transparency, allocation of
staff time and priorities, budgeting, and clarity of who is
responsible for what.
o The respective roles of ISOC, the IETF chair, the IAOC, and the
secretariat in representing the IETF to sponsors and donors and
communicating with them are not clear.
o Having ISOC represent the IETF to sponsors and donors -
* creates confusion about why the IETF does not represent itself,
* yields questions about why ISOC does not instead increase its
IETF support and how donations can be guaranteed to be
dedicated to the IETF, and
* can result in those soliciting sponsorships and donations
having a lack of familiarity with IETF work.
Workshop participants discussed organizational issues between ISOC
and IETF. For example, participants noted some items are branded
IETF, like the IETF Journal, are ISOC driven and funded, and are not
directed by the IETF community. One participant said it is often not
clear who is doing what on behalf of whom; a comment was made that
IASA 2.0 discussions should focus on what the _IETF_ is doing. Other
ISOC-funded activities include participation in the Ombudsteam -
Hall & Mahoney Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Report from the IASA 2.0 Virtual Workshops March 2017
which was requested by IETF and should show up in an accounting of
IETF resources - and ISOC Fellows and Policy Fellows - which are
ISOC-funded and controlled programs that should not show up in an
IETF budget. (The ISOC Fellows and Policy Fellows programs
encourage, respectively, technologists from emerging and developing
economies and policy experts from around the world to interact with
the IETF community.) A commentor mentioned that this sounded like a
branding issue at times: while the IETF Trust holds IETF trademarks,
is the IETF brand and the contours of what it encompasses clear? The
commentor further asked: who defines the contents of ISOC activities
that are visible to the outside world? Who decides how to drive
those things? Should those be included in the budget?
A related but distinct issue arose around control and policy
authority among the various IASA components. One workshop
participant said that the IETF community is confused about who has
policy authority. They continued: for example, if the IETF community
wants to change the structure of relationships with sponsors, who has
the authority to make that decision? IESG? IAOC? Community
consensus? This participant felt that this is unclear. A
participant said that there is a gap in terms of the IAOC being the
body that carries this out. How does the IAOC get its policy
instructions from the IETF community? The IAOC only goes to the
community for specific policy questions - e.g., the privacy policy or
changes to the trust legal provisions - but does not get general
"please do this" feedback from the community. A commentor stated: In
many cases the "policy from the IETF community" comes through the
IESG as voiced by the IETF chair. Another workshop participant felt
that there was a lack of clarity around even where some questions
should be asked (e.g. "how many logos do we want on our badges?" or
"who drives/has responsibility for some specific functions?"). That
commentor felt that an important question is whether or not the IETF
community wants a "thin" IAOC that has mostly oversight of the IAD or
a "thick" IAOC that has administrative responsibilities - i.e. "who
is driving the bus?"
In terms of accounting structure, the discussion at the virtual
workshop concluded that there have been improvements to accounting
that have helped increase accuracy, and the IETF budget has been
adjusted over the last 5 or 6 years to recognize ISOC staff
contributions, but appropriate accounting between ISOC and IETF needs
more work. One commentor said that it was not clear to them who is
in the driver's seat. One participant stated it as: "If we don't
like a function, can we delete it? Or does that require IETF
participation?" Some things are very clearly IETF topics, and then
there are some that fall in between IETF and ISOC, and then there are
some that are purely ISOC. A participant felt that control needs to
be aligned with accounting.
Hall & Mahoney Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Report from the IASA 2.0 Virtual Workshops March 2017
On the marketing side, workshop participants discussed how the IETF
is represented to the outside world - donors, media, other
organizations and communities - and some felt that it needs to be
clearer, even if this is currently an ISOC activity. One participant
said that people don't understand the difference between ISOC and
IETF and that we need to understand this before we can correctly
communicate it.
Some felt that the lack of rigid formality in the organization and
structure was not necessarily a bad thing. One commentor felt that
the structure of IETF, which is not well-defined and flexible,
provides a benefit to the Internet. Another commentor stated that
given the proclivities of engineers towards structure and formality,
working to improve IASA could make the IETF more structured and thus
less appealing to some kinds of contributors. Further, they stated
that we need clarity that institutionalizes this level accessibility
to all participants, which will be tricky. In contrast, another
participant felt that we do ourselves a disservice by this long-
standing confusion about whether IETF is an organization; they felt
that people within the community know what is meant by the IETF and
that more formality is not necessary. The point was made that any
changes to the organization of the IETF will have practical
implications, such as impacting legal transactions, which generally
go through ISOC.
3.2. Funding Issues
Slide 12 of the slide deck [IASA2-Workshop-Slides] discussed the
following issues related to the IETF funding model:
o Meeting fees are currently an important source of revenue, but
remote participation and other factors may be responsible for
declining in-person meeting attendance going forward. Even if
fees were charged for remote participation, charging the same for
remote and in-person attendance is unlikely to be a viable way to
make up the difference.
o While there has been a lot of sponsor support for, e.g., meeting
hosting, getting support for the full sponsorship program is not
easy. The value to sponsors is not always obvious, the IETF
community is sometimes critical or unappreciative, and the same
sponsors get tapped again and again for many related but different
opportunities.
o Relying heavily on meeting-based revenue is somewhat at odds with
the fact that much of the IETF's work takes place outside of in-
person meetings.
Hall & Mahoney Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Report from the IASA 2.0 Virtual Workshops March 2017
o The IETF is increasingly relying on professional services to
support its activities, causing expenses to grow.
Workshop participants discussed funding issues faced by the IETF,
including: increasing costs due to more tools, higher hotel fees,
etc.; relatively flat growth in funding; meeting fees that do not
cover operating expenses so that there is increased pressure on
sponsorship and increased ISOC contributions. These funding issues
are covered in [I-D.arkko-ietf-finance-thoughts].
Some workshop participants commented on how the willingness of
sponsors to fund IETF is a useful measure of the IETF's relevance.
That is, they said, looking for sponsors is a good way to measure
support in the community. The commentor went on to say if
sponsorship starts to dry up, it may be a symptom of larger problems,
that the IETF is no longer relevant or at least becoming less
relevant. This participant felt that the IETF needs to ensure its
ongoing relevance and that the IETF needs to understand what it's
offering. One commentor stated that while it's valuable to stay in
touch with the engineers who understand how the Internet works, that
may not justify their attendance at three meetings a year. It was
felt that individual sponsors' goals and the goals of the IETF
community will never line up perfectly, but that fact doesn't take
away the need for clarity.
In terms of funding sources, participants commented that it is
generally good for the IETF to have multiple sources of funding on
which to stand. This participant further stated that diversity in
funding sources allows IETF to shift gears: IETF endowment can
provide longer-term stability; Long-term sponsorship, such as the
Global Host program ($100k per year for 10 years, also stated as the
best way to support the IETF as an organization); meetings can be
funded through fees (although registration fees are prohibitive for
many) and sponsorships. However, explaining the need for diversity
of funding is more complicated than it needs to be. One participant
felt that we probably need to find a simpler story.
Specifically, participants discussed a potential mismatch between the
IETF's activities and its funding model, which is mainly constituted
from meeting fees. Questions raised included: What is the right
proportion for meeting-based revenue? What are the alternative
methods to fund the non-meeting-based activities? Sponsorships? Do
we hire staff or contract to provide assistance?
While ISOC currently makes up any current budget shortfalls for IETF
(after meeting fee and sponsorship income), a participant commented
that the assumption that ISOC's primary purpose is to fund the IETF
is more strongly held in some corners than others. At the same time,
Hall & Mahoney Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Report from the IASA 2.0 Virtual Workshops March 2017
this commentor said that another school of thought believes that the
.org contract that funds ISOC requires ISOC to ensure the support of
the IETF, so is a core goal of ISOC. Another commentor said that
after consulting some of the people involved when the .org contract
was given to ISOC, the IETF was clearly only a part of the public
interest the .org contract mission sought to fulfill. Further,
another commentor noted, those in local ISOC chapters don't think
that IETF is a purpose of ISOC, let alone the main purpose.
In terms of the relative amounts of funding from sources, a commentor
mentioned that the level of funding that the IETF receives through
Global Hosts is much smaller compared to the sponsorship funding of
many large-scale open-source projects (e.g., $500K/year per sponsor),
and the IETF could be getting a lot more money through this source.
Further, in terms of sponsorship funding, a participant state that
it's not often a cut-and-dry proposition, requiring a larger, more
diffuse commitment than a sponsor may originally expect. For
example, this participant noted that meeting sponsors are also
responsible for extra work like printing T-shirts and staging social
events, and there is a lot of risk to a meeting sponsor if they get
anything wrong (presumably in terms of backlash from the community).
This aspect of logistics and event programming is an area of
expertise that few IETF participants have, so sponsors often have to
get their marketing departments involved, for example. A commentor
said, if sponsors could focus on just securing the money, where
someone else would worry about the logistics problems, that would
help.
There were also issues discussed with communication to potential
sponsors and funders what they are agreeing to. A workshop
participant felt that the IETF needs to be able to clearly state what
it is asking for, and what the relevance is for the potential
sponsor. One participant stated that it's unclear now who is
responsible for communicating these messages to funding sources,
Further this participant said that it's unclear how this outreach is
done and if it is done well, especially for large sponsors. One
commentor states that it seems like there are two types of
organizations the IETF is looking for - those involved in the
Internet ecosystem, and those interested in standards. This person
felt that honing outreach to both of those types of organizations
would be helpful. Another commentor stated that the same sponsors
are asked for support over and over again. This person further asked
about how new companies are sought out and developed for potential
support. One commentor noted that outreach appears to be split
between the various IASA parties. A commentor stated that when ISOC
is raising funds on behalf of the IETF, its relationship to the IETF
needs to be clearly communicated.
Hall & Mahoney Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Report from the IASA 2.0 Virtual Workshops March 2017
Participants offered up some perspective as current and past IETF
sponsors through their own organization. One participant noted that
they consider it unusual to fund the IETF through a third party
(ISOC). This can raise approval and audit questions inside the
sponsor company, and the sponsor is left guessing as to when the IETF
might receive the money they contribute. Finally, this participant
wondered if this indirect structure makes sense in the future or if
can be made direct. The structure also makes it difficult to
contribute to the IETF endowment for the same issues and because
there is no independent organization managing and reporting on the
IETF endowment. Thus, perhaps a different level of financial and
administrative separation from ISOC would be helpful for fundraising
in the future, both for supporting the IETF generally and for the
endowment.
Some commentors talked about what kinds of support were easier to
secure from their organizations. An IETF participant may be more
inclined to seek, and find it easier to gain, sponsorship for easily
communicated and defined activities, for example, the Systers Lunch.
For activities like these, commentors noted that IETF participants
may do a better job than staffers hired to solicit funding, and we
should distribute the solicitation work as best as we can.
3.3. Transparency and Communication Issues
Slide 9 of the slide deck [IASA2-Workshop-Slides] discussed the
following issues involving transparency and communication:
o IAOC has typically been perceived to operate less transparently
than what is the norm for IETF processes and other IETF leadership
bodies.
o Lack of transparency has some roots in concerns about
confidentiality of contract terms and business relationships, and
fear of community reaction to administrative decisions.
o Requirements from the community about IAOC transparency
expectations are not clear.
Some said that he IAOC and IASA could better communicate with the
IETF community. IASA has lagged progress of groups like the IESG,
who have made agendas and meetings open. Participants felt that the
IETF community should document the transparency requirement clearly,
e.g., set the default to be open, such as open meetings and
materials, and publish an exception list for confidential or
sensitive matters. Hotel contracts aren't shown due to
confidentiality agreements, and there have been some arguments about
that reducing transparency of meeting deals. One workshop
Hall & Mahoney Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Report from the IASA 2.0 Virtual Workshops March 2017
participant identified fear as a significant cause of lack of
transparency. A commentor offered two potential sources of fear:
making a decision that the IAOC knows the community won't like, and
having a situation where there is a Last Call and all of the previous
conversations the IAOC has had are rehashed.
With regards to IAOC communication to IETF, some said that we could
use a better understanding of what needs to improve and where it can
improve. A commentor felt that the IAOC could do better in telling
the community what it does and how it makes decisions. However,
another commentor noted, now that plenary time has been shortened,
the community doesn't get to see the IAOC, and this reduces the
opportunities for the community to understand what they do. This
commentor noted that participants have said that they don't want
exposure to the boring details at the plenaries - "which are boring
until they're not, and then everyone is surprised." Another
participant asked, how we encourage the IETF community to understand
the IAOC and role of the IASA to best reduce these poor outcomes?
One suggestion was for the IAOC to hold information sessions or
office hours at meetings, to allow people to raise concerns and ask
for guidance. This could help the community get to know the IAOC and
have people volunteer. Some felt that the IAOC needs to provide
insight into what the IAOC is going to do, as opposed to what it has
just done. This commentor felt that telegraphing for a few years may
improve the level of education. It could help with transparency
without running afoul of the confidentiality of contracts. Some felt
that a Last Call for some IAOC things is worthwhile, but other, more
mundane tasks don't need it. A participant mentioned that the IAOC
should document the basis for a decision, rather than the mere fact
of it.
3.4. Staff and Volunteer Resource Issues
Slide 8 of the slide deck [IASA2-Workshop-Slides] discussed the
following issues involving staff and volunteer resources:
o IAD workload is (much) more than a full-time job, but we have one
staff person allocated to it.
o IASA tasks touch on a wider variety of topics and require more
different kinds of expertise than 10 years ago (visa issues, local
social/political/health issues, new modes of fundraising, etc.),
but the job descriptions and skill sets of staff and volunteers do
not always match these needs.
o Very few community members have the time, support, and interest to
stand for the IAOC (or even participate in administrative
Hall & Mahoney Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Report from the IASA 2.0 Virtual Workshops March 2017
discussions, unless something goes astray), and many who do are
self-funding their work.
Much of the discussion at the workshops regarding staff and volunteer
issues focused on the IAOC committees. Committees allow the IAOC to
draw in expertise in a particular area, without burdening committee
members with the overall task of IAOC responsibility. One
participant observed that the function of the committees seems to go
pretty well, but sometimes scope and authority in relation to the
IAOC are unclear. They asked, who's really in charge of the
committee? Who is leading the discussions and making decisions?
What kind of decision is being made? Who is supporting those
decisions? Another participant noted that a committee can make a
recommendation that is subject to easy reversal by the IAOC, which
can provide an undercurrent of doubt when discussions take place.
A participant said that, although IAOC committees are listed on the
IAOC website (https://iaoc.ietf.org/committees.html), there is a lack
of documentation about how the committee participants are chosen.
Elaborating the expertise and skills needed can be a challenge. For
some teams it is necessary to have paid staff or contractors.
Examples of paid contractors include the IETF lawyer, and some of the
site visit and meeting contract negotiation staff. Last year the
IAOC asked for volunteers from the community and added participants
to several committees.
A Workshop participant noted that, in order to understand how the
committees work, one needs to understand the requirements and
dependencies on contractors and other support structures, which is
complicated and not generally well understood. The commentor further
asked, what are the contractors doing? What effort is required to
serve as a volunteer? A participant felt that the committee
composition of volunteers plus paid staff may cause confusion about
participants' roles, and also cause control and accountability
issues. Another person said that the lack of encouragement for
participation in committees might be a disincentive for IAOC
participation. However, one workshop participant was surprised at
the number of participants involved in IAOC committees as well as the
varied mix of roles - volunteers, contractors, staff - which can make
it hard to assess if a committee member was serving as a paid hand,
policy maker, or somewhere in between.
3.5. Internal IAOC Organizational Issues
Slide 11 of the slide deck [IASA2-Workshop-Slides] discussed the
following issues specific to internal IAOC organizational matters:
Hall & Mahoney Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Report from the IASA 2.0 Virtual Workshops March 2017
o The IAOC has 4 ex officio members (IETF Chair, IAB Chair, ISOC
CEO, IAD (non-voting)), and 5 appointed members. One of 5 members
is appointed by the ISOC Board of Trustees, and is traditionally
expected not to stand for IAOC Chair. This yields -
* A small pool from which to select the IAOC Chair
* A small pool from which to select the IETF Trust Chair
* Very few (2, by the time you've appointed IAOC and Trust
Chairs) "worker bees" for the IAOC
o Requiring that the IAOC and the IETF Trust be constituted by the
same group of people overloads the job responsibilities of both
roles, narrows the pool of individuals willing and able to serve
on the IAOC, and creates the potential for conflicts in cases
where the creation of Trust policies requires IAOC oversight.
o Requiring that the IAB chair serve on the IAOC overloads the IAB
Chair's job responsibilities and narrows the pool of people
willing and able to serve as IAB Chair. The same may be true for
the IETF Chair.
Some workshop participants wondered if better communication, for
instance, knowing about IAOC activities early enough to affect them,
would translate into more people wanting to participate in the IAOC.
Information about the IAOC can be made available in email and on the
website, but that may not inspire people who don't care about
administrative issues to volunteer. A workshop participant stated
that having people spend time just on the technical work would be a
success, but relying on volunteers for the IAOC's large volume of
work may be unreasonable.
It was pointed out that populating the IAOC is difficult because is
there are so many leadership positions, and only those appointees
from the IESG, IAB, and the two appointed by NomCom can be Chair.
One of those four people will always be the Chair, and another of
those four will chair the IETF Trust. Another participant said that
there is a tradition of the ISOC Board of Trustees appointee not
standing for chair, but that is not a requirement, and the IAOC could
move away from it. It's important that the appointers choose people
who have interest in chairing, otherwise the pool gets smaller. A
workshop participant said that they had heard stories that NomComs
did not know what to look for when appointing someone to the IAOC.
One participant followed up to say that in their experience, NomComs
have looked for someone to clearly represent the IETF community, to
act as a balance against the institutional appointees. This
Hall & Mahoney Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Report from the IASA 2.0 Virtual Workshops March 2017
participant noted that This goal is probably in contrast to finding a
good chair.
Participants noted that the ex officios bring much knowledge to the
IAOC and they need to be participants, but they don't have the time.
One way to solve that would be to increase the regular membership of
the IAOC. There needs to be a way for the community to pick
additional people.
The question was asked: to what extent is the IAOC an oversight body?
A participant felt that if the community wants the IAOC to be able to
do more than provide the thinnest layer of oversight, then it needs
to revisit how to populate the IAOC. Another commentor felt that in
order to make any changes to the IAOC, the community needs to
understand the current roles and responsibilities of its members.
A commentor said that the IETF Trust requires talent separate from
the rest of the IAOC tasks. This commentor said that maybe it is no
longer convenient that the IAOC and Trust are together, given the
IANA stewardship transition and the need for IAOC feedback to the
Trust concerning the IANA IPR. However, this commentor felt that
this is a secondary issue compared to other issues raised during the
workshops. When asked if the Trust could be smaller, workshop
participants responded that size was not an issue aside from getting
quorum occasionally (this has only happened once or twice). Another
commentor felt that the size and composition of the IETF Trust should
be determined by its role, which needs to be discussed. Currently,
the IETF Trust has a light workload.
4. Security Considerations
This document describes the challenges and opportunities of the
IETF's administrative support activity. It introduces no security
considerations for the Internet.
5. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
6. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the participants of the IASA 2.0
workshops for their thoughtful insights.
Hall & Mahoney Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Report from the IASA 2.0 Virtual Workshops March 2017
7. Informative References
[Arkko-2016]
Arkko, J., "Proposed Project: IETF Administrative Support
2.0", 2016, <https://www.ietf.org/blog/2016/11/proposed-
project-ietf-administrative-support-2-0/>.
[I-D.arkko-ietf-finance-thoughts]
Arkko, J., "Thoughts on IETF Finance Arrangements", draft-
arkko-ietf-finance-thoughts-00 (work in progress),
February 2017.
[I-D.daigle-iasa-retrospective]
Daigle, L., "After the first decade: IASA Retrospective",
draft-daigle-iasa-retrospective-00 (work in progress),
October 2016.
[IASA-Org-Chart]
IETF, "IASA 2.0 Workshop #2 Slide Deck; Slide 5: IASA
Organizational Chart", 2017,
<https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim-2017-iasa20-
01/slides/slides-interim-2017-iasa20-01-sessa-iasa-20-
workshop-2-02.pdf#page=5>.
[IASA2-Workshop-Slides]
IETF, "IASA 2.0 Workshop #2 Slide Deck", 2017,
<https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim-2017-iasa20-
01/slides/slides-interim-2017-iasa20-01-sessa-iasa-20-
workshop-2-02.pdf>.
[IASA20-1100UT-rec]
IETF, "Recording: IASA 2.0 Virtual Workshop, 28 February
2017 (1100 UT)", 2017, <https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/
ldr.php?RCID=ef0761bb5806958ce37a631b20fa2910>.
[IASA20-1600UT-rec]
IETF, "Recording: IASA 2.0 Virtual Workshop, 28 February
2017 (1600 UT)", 2017, <https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/
ldr.php?RCID=ee9f475275e8758dc55d73b11c851d00>.
[IASA20-proceedings]
IETF, "IASA 2.0 Virtual Workshop Proceedings", 2017,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2017-iasa20-
01/session/iasa20>.
Hall & Mahoney Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Report from the IASA 2.0 Virtual Workshops March 2017
[RFC4071] Austein, R., Ed. and B. Wijnen, Ed., "Structure of the
IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101,
RFC 4071, DOI 10.17487/RFC4071, April 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4071>.
Appendix A. Participants
We list here participants in each virtual workshop (as listed in the
WebEx recording "Participants" list).
A.1. Participants in the 1100 UTC virtual workshop
o Alissa Cooper
o Eric Rescorla
o Gonzalo Camarillo
o Greg Wood
o Hans Peter Dittler
o Jari Arkko
o Joseph Lorenzo Hall
o Lars Eggert
o Leslie Daigle
o Lou Berger
o Randy Bush
o Scott Bradner
o Sean Turner
o Stephen Farrell
o Suzanne Woolf
A.2. Participants in the 1600 UTC virtual workshop
o Alexa Morris
o Alia Atlas
Hall & Mahoney Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Report from the IASA 2.0 Virtual Workshops March 2017
o Alissa Cooper
o Ben Campbell
o Avri Doria
o Ben Campbell
o Bob Hinden
o Cindy Morgan
o Dave Crocker
o Desiree Miloshevic
o Gonzalo Camarillo
o Greg Wood
o Hans Peter Dittler
o Henrik Levkowetz
o Jari Arkko
o Jason Livingood
o Jean Mahoney
o Joel Halpern
o Joseph Lorenzo Hall
o Kathleen Moriarty
o Laura Nugent
o Leslie Daigle
o Mat Ford
o Peter Yee
o Ray Pelletier
o Richard Barnes
Hall & Mahoney Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Report from the IASA 2.0 Virtual Workshops March 2017
o Robert Sparks
o Russ Housley
o Scott Bradner
o Spencer Dawkins
o Suresh Krishnan
o Suzanne Woolf
Authors' Addresses
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
CDT
Email: joe@cdt.org
A. Jean Mahoney
Email: mahoney@nostrum.com
Hall & Mahoney Expires September 14, 2017 [Page 17]