ietf-poised95 Tony Rutkowski Internet Draft Netmagic Proposal for establishing the IETF as an independent organization 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