Re: Ietf Digest, Vol 21, Issue 63
Bob, They are talking about the first IETF meeting as taking place on Jan. 16, 1986. What about the IETF meeting as one of the several task forces that Barry Leiner put together while you were still at DARPA? There was also the working group series that preceded the IETF. I recall that Jon Postel had kept the records of this work on the early Internet. Also, do you plan to go to Dallas? The last message to Harold mentions some agreement reached at Tunis with respect to IETF work with the to be formed Internet Governance Forum (at least I think that is what it is going to be called) (see early work on it at http://www.intgovforum.org/. Patrice - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ietf@ietf.org Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 10:40 AM Subject: Ietf Digest, Vol 21, Issue 63 -- Message: 6 Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:14:48 +0100 From: Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: An important day for the IETF To: IETF discussion list ietf@ietf.org Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Greetings, The first IETF meeting took place 20 years ago today, on January 16th, 1986, in San Diego, California. There were 21 attendees and Mike Corrigan was in the chair. The IETF has come a long way since then. We'll celebrate this in fine style during the 65th IETF meeting in Dallas, Texas from March 19 to 24, 2006. Brian Carpenter IETF Chair No. 6 -- Message: 7 Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 12:30:13 +0100 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: An important day for the IETF To: Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED], IETF discussion list ietf@ietf.org Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Happy birthday, IETF! And remember to raise an extra toast to Mike St. Johns, who should be coming to his 63rd or so IETF meeting in Dallas. for some of us, this has gotten to be a habit! Wonder how many of the original 21 are still around Harald, attendee since #22 (but missed #29) --On 16. januar 2006 11:14 +0100 Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Greetings, The first IETF meeting took place 20 years ago today, on January 16th, 1986, in San Diego, California. There were 21 attendees and Mike Corrigan was in the chair. The IETF has come a long way since then. We'll celebrate this in fine style during the 65th IETF meeting in Dallas, Texas from March 19 to 24, 2006. Brian Carpenter IETF Chair No. 6 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- Message: 9 Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:00:12 +0100 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: An important day for the IETF To: Noel Chiappa [EMAIL PROTECTED], ietf@ietf.org Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed --On mandag, januar 16, 2006 09:39:36 -0500 Noel Chiappa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wonder how many of the original 21 are still around You rang? :-) That's one :-) The minutes of the first meeting are now online (scanned PDF)(!), and there the attendees are listed as: Braun, Hans-Werner Bresica, Mike Callon, Ross Chiappa, Noel Eldridge, Charles Gross, Phill Hinden, Robert Mathis, James Mills, David Nagle, John Natalie, Ronald Rokitansky, Carl Shacham, Nachum Su, Zaw-Sing Topolcic, Claudio Zhang, Lixia Clark, David Corrigan, Mike Deering, Steve Means, Robert St. Johns, Mike The only email address that *might* still work is Hans-Werner Braun's none of the others have FQDNs. -- Message: 10 Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:30:13 +0100 From: JFC (Jefsey) Morfin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: An important day for the IETF To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED], Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED], IETF discussion list ietf@ietf.org Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed At 12:30 16/01/2006, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: Happy birthday, IETF! Dear Harald, you are right, happy birthday! An impressive continuity we should strive to protect. In avoiding the status quo that some stakeholders may favor, and areas outside of network engineering (such as linguistic and country political definition :-)). Wonder how many of the original 21 are still around Harald, attendee since #22 (but missed #29) Impressive. My own agenda that sad fortnight might help better understand the past, present and future of the network. - on 12-15 January 1986 I attended the eight Telecommunications Council Eighth Annual Conference at he Hawaiian Regent Hotel in Honolulu. The theme was Evolution of the Digital Pacific. Audience was probably 200 to 300 people. I had a lunch there with two lady training consultant for the US
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-lyons-proposed-changes-statement-01.txt
Brian, While this shouldn't be viewed as legal advice on the issue, it is my understanding that, in general, members of an unincorporated association (and participants in IETF activities may be viewed as members) will have personal liability for the authorized debts and actions of the association. In Virginia, state statutes permit an unincorporated association to become a limited liability company by filing articles of organization, maintaining a registered agent in the State, paying certain fees, and meeting certain other requirements. If it were to do so, IETF could limit the usual personal liability of its members. But in the absence of some such liability-limiting legal structure, the general personal liability principles would apply. Regards, Patrice - Original Message - From: Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Patrice Lyons [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 7:49 AM Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-lyons-proposed-changes-statement-01.txt Patrice, I don't want to argue law with a lawyer :-) However, in my experience on a couple of non-profit Boards, and in reviewing some experience of a family member in a completely different unincorporated association in the UK, I thought I understood that both fiduciary responsibility and potential for conflict of interest can only arise in a budget-holding organization. The IETF isn't one of those - it has delegated its budgets elsewhere. Brian Patrice Lyons wrote: Brian, What corporate (or for that matter unincorporated body) are you talking about here? Even if the IETF remains an unincorporated entity, it should retain the fiduciary responsiblity for overseeing its activities going forward. Incorporation wouldn't change this basic obligation. Regards, Patrice - Original Message - From: Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Patrice Lyons [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 4:41 PM Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-lyons-proposed-changes-statement-01.txt Patrice, I'm extracting here soem of your comments to Joel and some of those to Margaret, because I think there is a single underlying point to be discussed: Patrice Lyons wrote: ... While there are many reasons why incorporation of an association is desirable, one important reason for a technical association like IETF to incorporate is the substantial increase in exposure to potential liabilities arising from conflicting patent claims that has arisen over the last few years. In this context, there has been some talk of donation recently of patents for IETF, particularly a group of patents, for IETF purposes at little or no cost. What happens if a group of pooled patents is donated to IETF by the very organization that also controls funding for the IETF? What happens if such an organization is under no direct control by the IETF and takes steps that embroil the IETF in patent litigation? ... Second, you raised a question about ISOC. While my comments didn't single out ISOC, if ISOC is viewed as a fundraising entity or an actual source of funds for the IETF, and is also the organization charged with hiring an Administrative Director for the IETF and supervising his/her efforts such as contracting with third parties for IETF support services, I would again assert: where are the checks and balances. ... Apart from the provision of routine IETF support services, fundraising for the IETF is a potential source of conflict of interest. To minimize the possibility that a contributor of funds for IETF purposes might be perceived as having an undue influence on IETF standards setting work, I have proposed that a new, separately incorporated and independent entity called the IETF Foundation be established to manage the IETF fundraising activities. ... In any event, the IETF retains the fiduciary obligation to supervise and control any support services provided to the IETF by third parties, including any possible new administrative entity that may be established to serve the IETF community. While supervisory responsibility for certain support services (whether under contract or simply volunteer) may be delegated by the IETF to others, the obligation to provide general oversight for such activities resides ultimately with the IETF leadership, in particular the IESG. Now we agree that the IETF *is* an unincorporated association, and there was very strong consensus in earlier discussions that we don't want to change its fundamental nature and its open door policy. If that is granted, then the leadership (i.e. the IESG and IAB) are as far as I can see under no formal responsibility whatever - there's just a social contract in place (and if that breaks down, we can all go home anyway). So the *fiduciary* responsibility for supervision and control and for integrity in fund raising and fund disbursement *has* to lie with a body corporate in some jurisdiction. That body can join the IETF
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-lyons-proposed-changes-statement-01.txt
Harald, Thanks for sharing your thoughts about this. As I recall, at a meeting with you and Leslie in January 2004, you told me about a proposal under consideration that involved the donation of a patented architecture to the IETF. You mentioned a group that wanted to donate the technology, but I don't know if that has progressed in the interim. By donation, I mean such things as pooling patents in order to give technology to the IETF at little or no cost (whether or not under license). ISOC was mentioned in this context. This came up again informally during a coffee break at the ISOC Advisory Comm. meeting in Barcelona where I recall some discussion of possible interoperability testbeds for purposes of IETF architecture deliberations. It was my understanding that one motivating factor in the admin. restructuring process was the need to have a corporate entity to receive such donations of patents; ISOC also has some interest in this. While this notion hasn't been developed to any extent, as far as I am aware, there is an important kernel of thought here that needs to be addressed. Since the late 1980s when I first became involved in considering IPR policies for the IETF, I have been well aware of the need to be flexible with respect to copyright, patent and other rights and interests in an IETF context. Again, checks and balances are essential here. Regards, Patrice - Original Message - From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Patrice Lyons [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Joel M. Halpern [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 10:54 AM Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-lyons-proposed-changes-statement-01.txt --On torsdag, oktober 21, 2004 08:10:07 -0400 Patrice Lyons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In this context, there has been some talk of donation recently of patents for IETF, particularly a group of patents, for IETF purposes at little or no cost. could you give a little more pointer here, please? All the talk I've heard recently is about free/no-paperwork licensing of patents for use in implementing IETF protocols - I haven't heard anything about giving patents to the IETF. But then, I am not party to all conversations. Harald ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-lyons-proposed-changes-statement-01.txt
Margaret, You appear to be agreeing with my comments about the fundraising issue. There should be a distinction between routine contributions of funds for specific IETF events, and more substantial, long term support for IETF activities. Of course money is received in connection with IETF meetings: this is essential to the running of such events. There are also donations in kind to support such activities as the computer room and possible entertainment at the venue. However, such contributions whether in kind or cash differ considerably from the sustained donations that may be sollicited in order to provide long term stable support for IETF purposes and allow it to expand the services provided to the IETF community, and the Internet more generally. Regards, Patrice - Original Message - From: Margaret Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Patrice Lyons [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 10:32 AM Subject: Re: draft-lyons-proposed-changes-statement-01.txt Hi Patrice, At 11:07 AM -0400 10/20/04, Patrice Lyons wrote: You mentioned the importance of keeping support services, such as management of cash flow, separate from IETF technical efforts. I share this concern in large part. However, I would draw a distinction between carrying out routine administrative, financial (like accounting for expenses and meeting fees), technical (such as computer rooms at meetings), legal or other support services for the IETF (support services), and the solicitation, donation, receipt and other fundraising efforts for IETF purposes (fundraising). I don't believe that this distinction is as clean as you have indicated, particularly when it comes to meeting sponsorship, donations-in-kind and preferred contract pricing. Meeting sponsorship is one means by which large companies can offer financial support to the IETF (in return for PR and good will), so it is not really distinct from fund raising. This lack-of-distinction is emphasized by the meeting in Korea, where the sponsors donated $150,000 to the CNRI/Foretec, in addition to usual sponsorship costs which run in 6 figures themselves. I have no objection, at all, to having our meetings sponsored and/or having the sponsors make additional donations, but I think that meeting sponsorship is quite clearly a form of funding. Another form of funding is donations-in-kind. CNRI/Foretec currently buys equipment, software, etc. for running the IETF adminstrative activity. It might be possible to get companies to donate these goods, so that we don't have to pay for them. But, this is also a form of funding. Another, even more subtle form of funding is preferred contract pricing. Carl Malamud's report supposes that there are some people who would offer preferred (or zero-cost) prices to the IETF for their services, either for the PR or good will associated with providing those services. We already see this today on a smaller level -- the ops.ietf.org site is on Randy Bush's server, edu.ietf.org is on James Seng's and tools.ietf.org is on Henrik Levkowetz's. Many people donate their time to do a number of system administration tasks for the IETF and/or to run servers for our use (issue tracking, jabber, etc.) Maybe someone else will agree to run the IETF mailing lists for free (or cheap)? Or our web site? These are also all donations of goods, services, etc. So, I propose that we can't realistically separate all fund raising activities from the administrative support activity, at least not without eliminating some significant sources of funding. Please let me know if this clarification of my comments meets your concerns. I look forward to resolving the administrative issues that have been under discussion recently, but would add a note of caution on a rush to judgment. The reorganization issues under consideration are of major importance for the future of the IETF, and the Internet community more generally. We are in agreement that decisions about the structure of the IETF are important, long-term decisions that should not be taken lightly or made hastily. Margaret ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-lyons-proposed-changes-statement-01.txt
Brian, What corporate (or for that matter unincorporated body) are you talking about here? Even if the IETF remains an unincorporated entity, it should retain the fiduciary responsiblity for overseeing its activities going forward. Incorporation wouldn't change this basic obligation. Regards, Patrice - Original Message - From: Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Patrice Lyons [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 4:41 PM Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-lyons-proposed-changes-statement-01.txt Patrice, I'm extracting here soem of your comments to Joel and some of those to Margaret, because I think there is a single underlying point to be discussed: Patrice Lyons wrote: ... While there are many reasons why incorporation of an association is desirable, one important reason for a technical association like IETF to incorporate is the substantial increase in exposure to potential liabilities arising from conflicting patent claims that has arisen over the last few years. In this context, there has been some talk of donation recently of patents for IETF, particularly a group of patents, for IETF purposes at little or no cost. What happens if a group of pooled patents is donated to IETF by the very organization that also controls funding for the IETF? What happens if such an organization is under no direct control by the IETF and takes steps that embroil the IETF in patent litigation? ... Second, you raised a question about ISOC. While my comments didn't single out ISOC, if ISOC is viewed as a fundraising entity or an actual source of funds for the IETF, and is also the organization charged with hiring an Administrative Director for the IETF and supervising his/her efforts such as contracting with third parties for IETF support services, I would again assert: where are the checks and balances. ... Apart from the provision of routine IETF support services, fundraising for the IETF is a potential source of conflict of interest. To minimize the possibility that a contributor of funds for IETF purposes might be perceived as having an undue influence on IETF standards setting work, I have proposed that a new, separately incorporated and independent entity called the IETF Foundation be established to manage the IETF fundraising activities. ... In any event, the IETF retains the fiduciary obligation to supervise and control any support services provided to the IETF by third parties, including any possible new administrative entity that may be established to serve the IETF community. While supervisory responsibility for certain support services (whether under contract or simply volunteer) may be delegated by the IETF to others, the obligation to provide general oversight for such activities resides ultimately with the IETF leadership, in particular the IESG. Now we agree that the IETF *is* an unincorporated association, and there was very strong consensus in earlier discussions that we don't want to change its fundamental nature and its open door policy. If that is granted, then the leadership (i.e. the IESG and IAB) are as far as I can see under no formal responsibility whatever - there's just a social contract in place (and if that breaks down, we can all go home anyway). So the *fiduciary* responsibility for supervision and control and for integrity in fund raising and fund disbursement *has* to lie with a body corporate in some jurisdiction. That body can join the IETF social contract by agreeing to accept policy and technical direction form the IETF leadership, but that doesn't move the legal responsibility. And that being so, I just don't see the conflict of interest - if the body disburses funds for purposes other than what they were collected for, or breaks its social contract with the IETF, that's a breach of responsibility, but that can happen in any scenario whatever. Patent donations don't affect this - a patent is an asset and so it's really just like more money. Some poison pill would be needed to ensure that the patent can never be misused, but again I don't see conflict of interest. I just don't see how any of this argues for more than one body corporate. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-lyons-proposed-changes-statement-01.txt
Joel, Thanks for your comments. First, incorporation of the IETF. While there are many reasons why incorporation of an association is desirable, one important reason for a technical association like IETF to incorporate is the substantial increase in exposure to potential liabilities arising from conflicting patent claims that has arisen over the last few years. In this context, there has been some talk of donation recently of patents for IETF, particularly a group of patents, for IETF purposes at little or no cost. What happens if a group of pooled patents is donated to IETF by the very organization that also controls funding for the IETF? What happens if such an organization is under no direct control by the IETF and takes steps that embroil the IETF in patent litigation? Where an organization has a Board of Directors or Trustees that are drawn for the most part from a corporate group that may have some direct interest in seeing say a patented architecture dominate any architecture or architectural elements viewed as competitive, and decides to use funding as a mechanism to influence IETF decisions, say withholding funds from the IETF that would enable the IETF to retain a patent attorney to mount a legal challenge, how is the IETF to continue to operate effectively in the public interest? In posing these questions, a further suggestion comes to mind: perhaps the proposed new IETF Foundation could also receive patent donations. Then the IETF could independently consider, in accordance with the IETF procedures, whether or not to accept such donations and to establish a working group(s) to further vet them. But this may be a bit complicated to get into at this stage of the dialogue. The basic steps of filing incorporation papers -- really not expensive or time consuming -- and encouraging the establishment of the proposed IETF Foundation appear to be a reasonable way forward that wouldn't require much effort. Second, you raised a question about ISOC. While my comments didn't single out ISOC, if ISOC is viewed as a fundraising entity or an actual source of funds for the IETF, and is also the organization charged with hiring an Administrative Director for the IETF and supervising his/her efforts such as contracting with third parties for IETF support services, I would again assert: where are the checks and balances. The functions of funder and/or fundraiser should be separate from control of what consitutes a CEO for the IETF, particularly since the current plans being discussed would appear to relegate the IETF oversight of such functions to an intermediary group. What I term the IETF Executive Director would be hired by the IETF itself and remain under its direct supervision (please not: this is a different role from the current job description of the Executive Director of the IETF Secretariat). Regards, Patrice P.S. I've just subscribed to the IETF discussion list and, although I've cc'd it on my reply to you, please share my comments with the list in the event I'm not listed yet. Thx. - Original Message - From: Joel M. Halpern [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 6:00 PM Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-lyons-proposed-changes-statement-01.txt Many of the items in this draft (and its earlier version) are very interesting and helpful. However, I am missing a step in your reasoning. You state it appears desirable for ... to reconsider the current legal status of the Internet Engineering Task Force. I understand your statement that establishing a corporate structure is not really a very difficult or expensive step. (I think given this community, establishing such a structure that the community is happy with may be hard, but I understand that the legal side may well not be difficult.) What I am missing is the supporting argument for why it is important to make such a change at this time. Given the many problems the organization is currently facing, it would seem that spending energy examining / making this sort of change would have to be driven by a significant benefit. It is possible that you did spell out this benefit, and I missed it reading through this document. On a related note, you seem to be arguing that a new funding body, distinct from ISOC, should be created. Given that ISOC sees funding the IETF as one of its primary roles, I would wonder why we would want to duplicate that function. Yours, Joel M. Halpern At 10:35 AM 10/20/2004 -0400, you wrote: A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : IETF: Proposed Organizational Changes Author(s) : P. Lyons Filename: draft-lyons-proposed-changes-statement-01.txt,.pdf Pages : 0 Date: 2004-10-19 This memo outlines the nature of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) as an unincorporated association, reviews some history of the IETF Secretariat relevant to the current
draft-lyons-proposed-changes-statement-01.txt
Margaret, Thanks for sharing my Internet-Draft on the IETF administrative processes with the IETF discussion list. I also appreciated your recognition and kind words about the role played by CNRI, and Bob Kahn in particular, in supporting the IETF community. I have since revised my Internet-Draft somewhat in light of informal suggestions received from various persons, and added a few words to clarify certain issues you raised in your comments. The revised version is posted at: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lyons-proposed-changes-statement-01.txt You mentioned the importance of keeping support services, such as management of cash flow, separate from IETF technical efforts. I share this concern in large part. However, I would draw a distinction between carrying out routine administrative, financial (like accounting for expenses and meeting fees), technical (such as computer rooms at meetings), legal or other support services for the IETF (support services), and the solicitation, donation, receipt and other fundraising efforts for IETF purposes (fundraising). Apart from the provision of routine IETF support services, fundraising for the IETF is a potential source of conflict of interest. To minimize the possibility that a contributor of funds for IETF purposes might be perceived as having an undue influence on IETF standards setting work, I have proposed that a new, separately incorporated and independent entity called the IETF Foundation be established to manage the IETF fundraising activities. While the IETF Foundation would necessarily need to coordinate with the IETF leadership on IETF funding needs, the Foundation would not have any operational role (whether administrative, technical or otherwise) with respect to the IETF itself. A mission of this new organization would be to interface directly with funding sources and provide a buffer between such sources and the IETF. In any event, the IETF retains the fiduciary obligation to supervise and control any support services provided to the IETF by third parties, including any possible new administrative entity that may be established to serve the IETF community. While supervisory responsibility for certain support services (whether under contract or simply volunteer) may be delegated by the IETF to others, the obligation to provide general oversight for such activities resides ultimately with the IETF leadership, in particular the IESG. It would not be appropriate for the IETF to give up this vital oversight responsibility in the interest of administrative efficiency. Please let me know if this clarification of my comments meets your concerns. I look forward to resolving the administrative issues that have been under discussion recently, but would add a note of caution on a rush to judgment. The reorganization issues under consideration are of major importance for the future of the IETF, and the Internet community more generally. Regards, Patrice [EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. Since I just subscribed to the IETF discussion list and haven't received official notification yet, I would appreciate it if you would again share my comments with the list. ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
