ietf-poised95 Tony Rutkowski
Internet Draft Netmagic
Proposal for establishing the IETF as an independent organization
<draft-rutkowski-ietf-poised95-orgs.txt>
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working
documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas,
and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the
1id-abstracts.txt listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow
Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net (Europe),
munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or
ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast).
1. Abstract
This draft is related to the Hovey and Bradner [1], and Huizer
drafts [2], addressing only the matter of formal external
relationships.
The IETF is at a juncture in its evolution. The key factors
to consider are:
a) the most effective standards bodies in the past have all
been independent;
b) failure to do so invariably ends up seriously damaging
good standards bodies;
c) incorporation as an independent entity is needed
for the IETF;
d) Other effective standards bodies on the Internet,
in particular the WWW bodies, are also independent;
e) one simple and easy alternative proposed here is
incorporation under Swiss law (which also virtually
eliminates liability problems and provides the IETF
with its own international stature), and locate the
secretariat wherever desired.
2. Background
The history of standards organizations in the electronic communications
and computer fields has been marked by a remarkably common evolution.
They typically begin as extremely active, innovative activities bringing
knowledgeable experts together in very flexible, ad-hoc ways to develop
quickly and practically the standards needed for new systems or networks
The institutions are typically simple - consisting only of a plenary,
working groups, and a secretariat. They are usually independent and
with simple arrangements and processes.
The most visible early examples were standards organizations for telegraph,
telephone, and radio systems - all of which were created as independent
groups
of experts in the 1920s. Remarkably, organizations like the CCITT and
CCIR began as "IETF-like" fast moving, running-code oriented groups of
experts at that time - and remained independent until they were brought
under the inter-governmental and UN organizational umbrella of the ITU
in the late 40's whereafter they began assuming a significantly different
character and agendas. Even their standards remained free until the 1970s
when they became viewed as a revenue stream for political purposes at the
time. Many similar examples exist throughout the world.
Typically, when such standards organizations become significant, several
things start to happen. Other larger organizations want to acquire
them to enhance their own stature. The administrative matters become a
nuisance. A desire for some kind of "legal personality" becomes important
if for no other reason than minimizing the liability of the participants
to potential lawsuits. In the past, this has also occurred to obtain
"international stature" - arguably to magnify the effect of the standards
and to deal with similar organizations.
These are more than just hypothetical concerns for the IETF, as the
history of the IETF and the POISED process itself over the past five
years has arisen from problems and concerns about the actions of and
relationships with other organizations.
Invariably, as standards organizations are captured, they become subject
to the controls, objectives, politics, and funding priorities of the parent.
The standards organization suffers the results. The same story has been
played out repeatedly over the past 70 years, and relatively few
organizations had the tenacity to maintain their independence.
However, times have changed. It is very easy today to incorporate as a
bona fide international organization in a neutral, low-liability venue,
and maintain the independence of the body and its secretariat. For
example, the International WWW Conference Committee - a global organization
dedicated to promoting leading-edge WWW-related R&D and technical papers -
recently chartered itself as an international organization under the
provisions of Art. 60 of Swiss Confederation. The Internet Law and Policy
Forum is also undertaking this course. Nearly all the various Internet
and WWW consortia exist as independent groups. The AP-NIC elected to use
an analogous regional process in the Seychelles.
3. Incorporation of the IETF
The IETF today consists principally of its working groups, areas,
the IESG and the Secretariat. It has been an effective construct
that grew out of its DARPA research origins. However, its lack of
incorporation exposes participants to potential personal liability
in litigated disputes. In addition, the lack of some kind of real
legal existence, coupled with the continued maintenance of the
Secretariat as a contracted research project under the US government,
needlessly detracts from the international character of the work and
the standards - a potential problem in future trade or legal disputes
for companies using IETF standards.
The simplest and most effect course of action is for the IESG to
prepare a charter as the Board of Directors of a non-profit
international organization under Art. 60 of Swiss Law. It is a
quick and easy process that has very low overhead requirements,
results in near zero probability of litigation, and provides
certification as an international organization as a byproduct.
The Secretariat of such an incorporated IETF can exist anywhere,
and maintained in any manner desired by its Board of Directors.
Similarly, such an organization can adopt relationships, funding
mechanisms, and procedures as it wishes - not as dictated by
someone else. Any other organization and party can still provide
the IETF with income under this approach. However, they don't
get the right to own or control the organization.
It is suggested, however, that some consideration be given to the
manner of defining "membership" - primarily as it relates to
electing the IESG as the Board of Directors. Here some nominal
definition of membership - such as requiring attendance at two
meetings a year - might be appropriate.
4. Conclusion
In the IETF tradition of "simple" protocols that work, it seems
apparent that the most effective and viable course of action for
the IESG, with the least liability and constraints for participants,
is to incorporate the IETF as a non-profit international
organization under Swiss law, manage its own affairs, and avoid
ceding its autonomy and control to any other organization.
5. Security considerations
none
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the many people from the IETF, ILPF, and
WWW communities who helped contribute to draft.
Author's address
----------------
Anthony M. Rutkowski
NetMagic
13101 Weathervane Way
Herndon VA 22071
USA
Tel: +1 703.471.0593
Fax: +1 703.471.0596
E-mail: amr@chaos.com
Reference
1. The Organizations Involved in the IETF Standards Process;
R. Hovey, S. Bradner; draft-ietf-poised95-ietf-orgs-02.txt;
14 May 1996
2. ETF-ISOC relationship; Erik Huizer;
draft-ietf-poised95-isoc-03.txt; May 1996