Report from the IASA 2.0 Virtual Workshops

Versions: 00                                                            
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


   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

   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
   ( 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

   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

   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

   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

   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

   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

   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 (, 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, J., "Proposed Project: IETF Administrative Support
              2.0", 2016, <

              Arkko, J., "Thoughts on IETF Finance Arrangements", draft-
              arkko-ietf-finance-thoughts-00 (work in progress),
              February 2017.

              Daigle, L., "After the first decade: IASA Retrospective",
              draft-daigle-iasa-retrospective-00 (work in progress),
              October 2016.

              IETF, "IASA 2.0 Workshop #2 Slide Deck; Slide 5: IASA
              Organizational Chart", 2017,

              IETF, "IASA 2.0 Workshop #2 Slide Deck", 2017,

              IETF, "Recording: IASA 2.0 Virtual Workshop, 28 February
              2017 (1100 UT)", 2017, <

              IETF, "Recording: IASA 2.0 Virtual Workshop, 28 February
              2017 (1600 UT)", 2017, <

              IETF, "IASA 2.0 Virtual Workshop Proceedings", 2017,

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,

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


   A. Jean Mahoney


Hall & Mahoney         Expires September 14, 2017              [Page 17]