<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
  <?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
  <!-- generated by https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc2629 version 1.0.30 -->

<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
]>

<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>

<rfc ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-hall-iasa20-workshops-report-00" category="info">

  <front>
    <title>Report from the IASA 2.0 Virtual Workshops</title>

    <author initials="J.L." surname="Hall" fullname="Joseph Lorenzo Hall">
      <organization>CDT</organization>
      <address>
        <email>joe@cdt.org</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="A.J." surname="Mahoney" fullname="A. Jean Mahoney">
      <organization></organization>
      <address>
        <email>mahoney@nostrum.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date year="2017" month="March" day="13"/>

    <area>General</area>
    <workgroup>Network Working Group</workgroup>
    <keyword>Internet-Draft</keyword>

    <abstract>


<t>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.</t>



    </abstract>


  </front>

  <middle>


<section anchor="intro" title="Introduction">

<t>The IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) arrangements were
created more than ten years ago, when the IETF initially took charge
of its own administration <xref target="RFC4071"/>. In the intervening years, there
has been considerable change in the tasks of IETF administration and
in the world around the IETF <xref target="I-D.daigle-iasa-retrospective"/> and in
how the IETF raises funds and finances its work
<xref target="I-D.arkko-ietf-finance-thoughts"/>.</t>

<t>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 <xref target="Arkko-2016"/>. The 
IASA 2.0 process seeks to address what administrative arrangements 
that will best support the IETF going forward.</t>

<t>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
of staff, contractor, and volunteer resources compared to the
administrative workload; and internal IAOC organizational issues.</t>

<t>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
<xref target="IASA20-proceedings"/>. Recordings of the two workshops are also
available <xref target="IASA20-1100UT-rec"/> <xref target="IASA20-1600UT-rec"/>.</t>

<t>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.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="termsorg" title="Terminology and Organizational Structure">

<section anchor="terms" title="Terminology">

<t>The following acronyms will be heavily used in the discussion below:</t>

<t><list style="symbols">
  <t>IASA - IETF Administrative Support Activity - An organized activity
that provides administrative support for the IETF, the IAB and the
IESG.</t>
  <t>IAOC - IETF Administrative Oversight Committee - A largely
IETF-selected committee that oversees and directs IASA. Accountable
to the IETF community.</t>
  <t>ISOC - The Internet Society - An organization that assists the IETF
with legal, administrative, and funding tasks.</t>
  <t>IAD - IETF Administrative Director - The sole staff member
responsible for carrying out the work of the IASA. An ISOC employee.</t>
  <t>IETF Trust - Acquires, maintains, and licenses intellectual and
other property used in connection with the administration of the
IETF. Same composition as IAOC.</t>
</list></t>

</section>
<section anchor="org" title="Organizational Structure">

<t>In terms of organizational arrangements, the workshop chairs provided
a diagram that captured many of the organizational relationships among
various entities <xref target="IASA-Org-Chart"/>.  The IAOC relies on a number of
committees to get its work done – Finance, Legal Management,
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.</t>

<t>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.</t>

</section>
</section>
<section anchor="issues" title="Issues Raised">

<t>The IASA 2.0 Virtual Workshops focused on the areas below.</t>

<section anchor="structure" title="Structural and Organizational Issues">

<t>Slide 10 of the slide deck <xref target="IASA2-Workshop-Slides"/> discussed the
following structural issues between the IETF, the IAOC, ISOC, the
IESG, and contractors:</t>

<t><list style="symbols">
  <t>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.</t>
  <t>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.</t>
  <t>Having ISOC represent the IETF to sponsors and donors -
  <list style="symbols">
      <t>creates confusion about why the IETF does not represent itself,</t>
      <t>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</t>
      <t>can result in those soliciting sponsorships and donations having a lack 
of familiarity with IETF work.</t>
    </list></t>
</list></t>

<t>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 <spanx style="emph">IETF</spanx> is doing. Other ISOC-funded activities
include participation in the Ombudsteam – 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?</t>

<t>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?”</t>

<t>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.</t>

<t>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.</t>

<t>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.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="funding" title="Funding Issues">

<t>Slide 12 of the slide deck <xref target="IASA2-Workshop-Slides"/> discussed the
following issues related to the IETF funding model:</t>

<t><list style="symbols">
  <t>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.</t>
  <t>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.</t>
  <t>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.</t>
  <t>The IETF is increasingly relying on professional services to support 
its activities, causing expenses to grow.</t>
</list></t>

<t>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 <xref target="I-D.arkko-ietf-finance-thoughts"/>.</t>

<t>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.</t>

<t>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.</t>

<t>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?</t>

<t>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, 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.</t>

<t>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.</t>

<t>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.</t>

<t>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.</t>

<t>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.</t>

<t>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.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="transparency" title="Transparency and Communication Issues">

<t>Slide 9 of the slide deck <xref target="IASA2-Workshop-Slides"/> discussed the
following issues involving transparency and communication:</t>

<t><list style="symbols">
  <t>IAOC has typically been perceived to operate less transparently 
than what is the norm for IETF processes and other IETF leadership bodies.</t>
  <t>Lack of transparency has some roots in concerns about confidentiality 
of contract terms and business relationships, and fear of community 
reaction to administrative decisions.</t>
  <t>Requirements from the community about IAOC transparency expectations 
are not clear.</t>
</list></t>

<t>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 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.</t>

<t>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.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="staff" title="Staff and Volunteer Resource Issues">

<t>Slide 8 of the slide deck <xref target="IASA2-Workshop-Slides"/> discussed the
following issues involving staff and volunteer resources:</t>

<t><list style="symbols">
  <t>IAD workload is (much) more than a full-time job, but we have 
one staff person allocated to it.</t>
  <t>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.</t>
  <t>Very few community members have the time, support, and interest to 
stand for the IAOC (or even participate in administrative discussions, 
unless something goes astray), and many who do are self-funding their work.</t>
</list></t>

<t>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.</t>

<t>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.</t>

<t>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.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="IAOCorg" title="Internal IAOC Organizational Issues">

<t>Slide 11 of the slide deck <xref target="IASA2-Workshop-Slides"/> discussed the
following issues specific to internal IAOC organizational matters:</t>

<t><list style="symbols">
  <t>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 -
  <list style="symbols">
      <t>A small pool from which to select the IAOC Chair</t>
      <t>A small pool from which to select the IETF Trust Chair</t>
      <t>Very few (2, by the time you’ve appointed IAOC and Trust Chairs) “worker bees” for the IAOC</t>
    </list></t>
  <t>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.</t>
  <t>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.</t>
</list></t>

<t>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.</t>

<t>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
participant noted that This goal is probably in contrast to finding a
good chair.</t>

<t>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.</t>

<t>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.</t>

<t>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.</t>

</section>
</section>
<section anchor="security" title="Security Considerations">

<t>This document describes the challenges and opportunities of the IETF’s
administrative support activity.  It introduces no security
considerations for the Internet.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">

<t>This document has no actions for IANA.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="acknowledgments" title="Acknowledgments">

<t>The authors would like to thank the participants of the IASA 2.0 workshops for their thoughtful insights.</t>

</section>


  </middle>

  <back>


    <references title='Informative References'>





<reference  anchor='RFC4071' target='http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4071'>
<front>
<title>Structure of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA)</title>
<author initials='R.' surname='Austein' fullname='R. Austein' role='editor'><organization /></author>
<author initials='B.' surname='Wijnen' fullname='B. Wijnen' role='editor'><organization /></author>
<date year='2005' month='April' />
<abstract><t>This document describes the structure of the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA) as an activity housed within the Internet Society (ISOC).  It defines the roles and responsibilities of the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC), the IETF Administrative Director (IAD), and ISOC in the fiscal and administrative support of the IETF standards process.  It also defines the membership and selection rules for the IAOC.  This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t></abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name='BCP' value='101'/>
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='4071'/>
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC4071'/>
</reference>



<reference anchor='I-D.daigle-iasa-retrospective'>
<front>
<title>After the first decade: IASA Retrospective</title>

<author initials='L' surname='Daigle' fullname='Leslie Daigle'>
    <organization />
</author>

<date month='October' day='31' year='2016' />

<abstract><t>The IETF Administrative Support Activity was formally established and undertaken as a project of the Internet Society in 2005.  In the following 10+ years, the IETF has grown and changed, as have the responsibilities that fall to the IASA.  This document reflects on some of those changes and the implications within the IASA structure, providing some areas for further discussion to consider evolvingthe IASA and the IETF/ISOC relationship.</t></abstract>

</front>

<seriesInfo name='Internet-Draft' value='draft-daigle-iasa-retrospective-00' />
<format type='TXT'
        target='http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-daigle-iasa-retrospective-00.txt' />
</reference>



<reference anchor='I-D.arkko-ietf-finance-thoughts'>
<front>
<title>Thoughts on IETF Finance Arrangements</title>

<author initials='J' surname='Arkko' fullname='Jari Arkko'>
    <organization />
</author>

<date month='February' day='28' year='2017' />

<abstract><t>This short memo outlines the author's thoughts of current status and future development questions around IETF's financing mechanisms.  This memo is also input for discussion that the IETF community should have.  The memo is the first part of the author's goal to document the status and various challenges and opportunities associated with the IETF Administrative Activity (IASA), in the context of the so called "IASA 2.0" project.  The memo has no particular official standing, nor does it claim to represent more than the authors' thinking at the time of writing.</t></abstract>

</front>

<seriesInfo name='Internet-Draft' value='draft-arkko-ietf-finance-thoughts-00' />
<format type='TXT'
        target='http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-arkko-ietf-finance-thoughts-00.txt' />
</reference>


<reference anchor="Arkko-2016" target="https://www.ietf.org/blog/2016/11/proposed-project-ietf-administrative-support-2-0/">
  <front>
    <title>Proposed Project: IETF Administrative Support 2.0</title>
    <author initials="J." surname="Arkko" fullname="Jari Arkko">
      <organization></organization>
    </author>
    <date year="2016"/>
  </front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="IASA20-proceedings" target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2017-iasa20-01/session/iasa20">
  <front>
    <title>IASA 2.0 Virtual Workshop Proceedings</title>
    <author >
      <organization>IETF</organization>
    </author>
    <date year="2017"/>
  </front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="IASA20-1100UT-rec" target="https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/ldr.php?RCID=ef0761bb5806958ce37a631b20fa2910">
  <front>
    <title>Recording: IASA 2.0 Virtual Workshop, 28 February 2017 (1100 UT)</title>
    <author >
      <organization>IETF</organization>
    </author>
    <date year="2017"/>
  </front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="IASA20-1600UT-rec" target="https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/ldr.php?RCID=ee9f475275e8758dc55d73b11c851d00">
  <front>
    <title>Recording: IASA 2.0 Virtual Workshop, 28 February 2017 (1600 UT)</title>
    <author >
      <organization>IETF</organization>
    </author>
    <date year="2017"/>
  </front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="IASA-Org-Chart" target="https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim-2017-iasa20-01/slides/slides-interim-2017-iasa20-01-sessa-iasa-20-workshop-2-02.pdf#page=5">
  <front>
    <title>IASA 2.0 Workshop #2 Slide Deck; Slide 5: IASA Organizational Chart</title>
    <author >
      <organization>IETF</organization>
    </author>
    <date year="2017"/>
  </front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="IASA2-Workshop-Slides" target="https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim-2017-iasa20-01/slides/slides-interim-2017-iasa20-01-sessa-iasa-20-workshop-2-02.pdf">
  <front>
    <title>IASA 2.0 Workshop #2 Slide Deck</title>
    <author >
      <organization>IETF</organization>
    </author>
    <date year="2017"/>
  </front>
</reference>


    </references>


<section anchor="participants" title="Participants">

<t>We list here participants in each virtual workshop (as listed in the
WebEx recording “Participants” list).</t>

<section anchor="participants-in-the-1100-utc-virtual-workshop" title="Participants in the 1100 UTC virtual workshop">

<t><list style="symbols">
  <t>Alissa Cooper</t>
  <t>Eric Rescorla</t>
  <t>Gonzalo Camarillo</t>
  <t>Greg Wood</t>
  <t>Hans Peter Dittler</t>
  <t>Jari Arkko</t>
  <t>Joseph Lorenzo Hall</t>
  <t>Lars Eggert</t>
  <t>Leslie Daigle</t>
  <t>Lou Berger</t>
  <t>Randy Bush</t>
  <t>Scott Bradner</t>
  <t>Sean Turner</t>
  <t>Stephen Farrell</t>
  <t>Suzanne Woolf</t>
</list></t>

</section>
<section anchor="participants-in-the-1600-utc-virtual-workshop" title="Participants in the 1600 UTC virtual workshop">

<t><list style="symbols">
  <t>Alexa Morris</t>
  <t>Alia Atlas</t>
  <t>Alissa Cooper</t>
  <t>Ben Campbell</t>
  <t>Avri Doria</t>
  <t>Ben Campbell</t>
  <t>Bob Hinden</t>
  <t>Cindy Morgan</t>
  <t>Dave Crocker</t>
  <t>Desiree Miloshevic</t>
  <t>Gonzalo Camarillo</t>
  <t>Greg Wood</t>
  <t>Hans Peter Dittler</t>
  <t>Henrik Levkowetz</t>
  <t>Jari Arkko</t>
  <t>Jason Livingood</t>
  <t>Jean Mahoney</t>
  <t>Joel Halpern</t>
  <t>Joseph Lorenzo Hall</t>
  <t>Kathleen Moriarty</t>
  <t>Laura Nugent</t>
  <t>Leslie Daigle</t>
  <t>Mat Ford</t>
  <t>Peter Yee</t>
  <t>Ray Pelletier</t>
  <t>Richard Barnes</t>
  <t>Robert Sparks</t>
  <t>Russ Housley</t>
  <t>Scott Bradner</t>
  <t>Spencer Dawkins</t>
  <t>Suresh Krishnan</t>
  <t>Suzanne Woolf</t>
</list></t>

</section>
</section>


  </back>
</rfc>

