idnits 2.17.1 draft-rutkowski-ietf-poised95-orgs-00.txt: ** The Abstract section seems to be numbered Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Cannot find the required boilerplate sections (Copyright, IPR, etc.) in this document. Expected boilerplate is as follows today (2024-03-28) according to https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info : IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.a: This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.b(i), paragraph 2: Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.b(i), paragraph 3: This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 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. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Missing expiration date. The document expiration date should appear on the first and last page. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about Internet-Drafts being working documents. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of current Internet-Drafts. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of Shadow Directories. ** Missing revision: the document name given in the document, 'draft-rutkowski-ietf-poised95-orgs', does not give the document revision number ~~ Missing draftname component: the document name given in the document, 'draft-rutkowski-ietf-poised95-orgs', does not seem to contain all the document name components required ('draft' prefix, document source, document name, and revision) -- see https://www.ietf.org/id-info/guidelines#naming for more information. == Mismatching filename: the document gives the document name as 'draft-rutkowski-ietf-poised95-orgs', but the file name used is 'draft-rutkowski-ietf-poised95-orgs-00' == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 1 longer page, the longest (page 1) being 191 lines Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** There are 28 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 7 characters in excess of 72. ** The abstract seems to contain references ([2], [1]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- Couldn't find a document date in the document -- date freshness check skipped. Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) -- Missing reference section? '1' on line 28 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? '2' on line 29 looks like a reference Summary: 10 errors (**), 1 flaw (~~), 3 warnings (==), 4 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 ietf-poised95 Tony Rutkowski 2 Internet Draft Netmagic 4 Proposal for establishing the IETF as an independent organization 6 8 Status of this Memo 10 This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working 11 documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, 12 and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute 13 working documents as Internet-Drafts. 15 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 16 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 17 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 18 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 20 To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the 21 1id-abstracts.txt listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow 22 Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net (Europe), 23 munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or 24 ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast). 26 1. Abstract 28 This draft is related to the Hovey and Bradner [1], and Huizer 29 drafts [2], addressing only the matter of formal external 30 relationships. 32 The IETF is at a juncture in its evolution. The key factors 33 to consider are: 35 a) the most effective standards bodies in the past have all 36 been independent; 38 b) failure to do so invariably ends up seriously damaging 39 good standards bodies; 41 c) incorporation as an independent entity is needed 42 for the IETF; 44 d) Other effective standards bodies on the Internet, 45 in particular the WWW bodies, are also independent; 47 e) one simple and easy alternative proposed here is 48 incorporation under Swiss law (which also virtually 49 eliminates liability problems and provides the IETF 50 with its own international stature), and locate the 51 secretariat wherever desired. 53 2. Background 55 The history of standards organizations in the electronic communications 56 and computer fields has been marked by a remarkably common evolution. 57 They typically begin as extremely active, innovative activities bringing 58 knowledgeable experts together in very flexible, ad-hoc ways to develop 59 quickly and practically the standards needed for new systems or networks 60 The institutions are typically simple - consisting only of a plenary, 61 working groups, and a secretariat. They are usually independent and 62 with simple arrangements and processes. 64 The most visible early examples were standards organizations for telegraph, 65 telephone, and radio systems - all of which were created as independent 66 groups 67 of experts in the 1920s. Remarkably, organizations like the CCITT and 68 CCIR began as "IETF-like" fast moving, running-code oriented groups of 69 experts at that time - and remained independent until they were brought 70 under the inter-governmental and UN organizational umbrella of the ITU 71 in the late 40's whereafter they began assuming a significantly different 72 character and agendas. Even their standards remained free until the 1970s 73 when they became viewed as a revenue stream for political purposes at the 74 time. Many similar examples exist throughout the world. 76 Typically, when such standards organizations become significant, several 77 things start to happen. Other larger organizations want to acquire 78 them to enhance their own stature. The administrative matters become a 79 nuisance. A desire for some kind of "legal personality" becomes important 80 if for no other reason than minimizing the liability of the participants 81 to potential lawsuits. In the past, this has also occurred to obtain 82 "international stature" - arguably to magnify the effect of the standards 83 and to deal with similar organizations. 85 These are more than just hypothetical concerns for the IETF, as the 86 history of the IETF and the POISED process itself over the past five 87 years has arisen from problems and concerns about the actions of and 88 relationships with other organizations. 90 Invariably, as standards organizations are captured, they become subject 91 to the controls, objectives, politics, and funding priorities of the parent. 92 The standards organization suffers the results. The same story has been 93 played out repeatedly over the past 70 years, and relatively few 94 organizations had the tenacity to maintain their independence. 96 However, times have changed. It is very easy today to incorporate as a 97 bona fide international organization in a neutral, low-liability venue, 98 and maintain the independence of the body and its secretariat. For 99 example, the International WWW Conference Committee - a global organization 100 dedicated to promoting leading-edge WWW-related R&D and technical papers - 101 recently chartered itself as an international organization under the 102 provisions of Art. 60 of Swiss Confederation. The Internet Law and Policy 103 Forum is also undertaking this course. Nearly all the various Internet 104 and WWW consortia exist as independent groups. The AP-NIC elected to use 105 an analogous regional process in the Seychelles. 107 3. Incorporation of the IETF 109 The IETF today consists principally of its working groups, areas, 110 the IESG and the Secretariat. It has been an effective construct 111 that grew out of its DARPA research origins. However, its lack of 112 incorporation exposes participants to potential personal liability 113 in litigated disputes. In addition, the lack of some kind of real 114 legal existence, coupled with the continued maintenance of the 115 Secretariat as a contracted research project under the US government, 116 needlessly detracts from the international character of the work and 117 the standards - a potential problem in future trade or legal disputes 118 for companies using IETF standards. 120 The simplest and most effect course of action is for the IESG to 121 prepare a charter as the Board of Directors of a non-profit 122 international organization under Art. 60 of Swiss Law. It is a 123 quick and easy process that has very low overhead requirements, 124 results in near zero probability of litigation, and provides 125 certification as an international organization as a byproduct. 127 The Secretariat of such an incorporated IETF can exist anywhere, 128 and maintained in any manner desired by its Board of Directors. 129 Similarly, such an organization can adopt relationships, funding 130 mechanisms, and procedures as it wishes - not as dictated by 131 someone else. Any other organization and party can still provide 132 the IETF with income under this approach. However, they don't 133 get the right to own or control the organization. 135 It is suggested, however, that some consideration be given to the 136 manner of defining "membership" - primarily as it relates to 137 electing the IESG as the Board of Directors. Here some nominal 138 definition of membership - such as requiring attendance at two 139 meetings a year - might be appropriate. 141 4. Conclusion 143 In the IETF tradition of "simple" protocols that work, it seems 144 apparent that the most effective and viable course of action for 145 the IESG, with the least liability and constraints for participants, 146 is to incorporate the IETF as a non-profit international 147 organization under Swiss law, manage its own affairs, and avoid 148 ceding its autonomy and control to any other organization. 150 5. Security considerations 152 none 154 Acknowledgements 156 I would like to thank the many people from the IETF, ILPF, and 157 WWW communities who helped contribute to draft. 159 Author's address 160 ---------------- 161 Anthony M. Rutkowski 162 NetMagic 163 13101 Weathervane Way 164 Herndon VA 22071 165 USA 166 Tel: +1 703.471.0593 167 Fax: +1 703.471.0596 168 E-mail: amr@chaos.com 170 Reference 172 1. The Organizations Involved in the IETF Standards Process; 173 R. Hovey, S. Bradner; draft-ietf-poised95-ietf-orgs-02.txt; 174 14 May 1996 176 2. ETF-ISOC relationship; Erik Huizer; 177 draft-ietf-poised95-isoc-03.txt; May 1996