Network Working Group                                         S. CrockerRequest for Comments: 1396             Trusted Information Systems, Inc.                                                            January 1993           The Process for Organization of Internet Standards                         Working Group (POISED)                          Steve Crocker, ChairStatus of this Memo   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does   not specify an Internet standard.  Distribution of this memo is   unlimited.Abstract   This report provides a summary of the POISED Working Group (WG),   starting from the events leading to the formation of the WG to the   end of 1992.  Necessarily, this synopsis represents my own   perception, particularly for the "prehistory" period.  Quite a few   people hold strong views about both the overall sequence and specific   events.  My intent here is to convey as neutral a point of view as   possible.Background and Formation of POISED Working Group   The POISED WG resulted from two sequences of activity, both   intimately related to the growth of the Internet.  During 1991, there   was great concern that the IP address space was being depleted and   that the routing tables were growing too large.  Some change in the   IP addressing and routing mechanisms seemed inevitable, and it became   urgent to explore and choose what those changes should be.  The ROAD   Working Group was formed to study the issues and recommend changes.   The ROAD group returned with a specific recommendation for the short   term, but did not reach a conclusion on a long term plan.   The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) then formulated a plan   of action for further exploration of the issues and forwarded these   recommendations to the Internet Architecture Board (IAB).  In June   1992, after the INET '92 meeting in Kobe, Japan, the IAB met and   considered the IESG's recommendations.  After considering the IESG's   recommendations, the IAB felt that additional ideas were also   important, particularly some of the addressing ideas in the CLNP   protocol.  The IAB communicated its concerns, and there was immediate   controversy along two dimensions.  One dimension was technical: What   is the best course for evolving the IP protocol?  How important or   useful are the ideas in the OSI protocol stack?  The other dimensionCrocker                                                         [Page 1]RFC 1396                     Poised Report                  January 1993   was political: Who makes decisions within the Internet community?   Who chooses who makes these decisions?   As often happens during periods of conflict, communication suffered   among the several parties.  The June communication from the IAB was   understood by many an IAB decision or, equivalently, a sense of the   decisions the IAB would make in the future.  In contrast, many if not   all on the IAB felt that they were trying to open up the discussion   and their memos were intended as advice and not decisions.  From my   perspective, this form of miscommunication was partly due to the   extended size of the Internet technical community.  When the   community was much smaller, the IAB was in close contact with the day   to day workings of the technical groups.  With the creation of the   IESG and area directorates, there are now two or three layers between   a working group and the IAB.   These matters came to a head during the Internet Engineering Task   Force (IETF) meeting in July in Cambridge, MA.  It was made clear   that the consideration of changes to the IP protocol remained open.   Work on that topic has proceeded and is reported in the appropriate   forums.  However, it became clear that it was necessary to examine   the decision process and the procedures for populating the IESG and   IAB.  With respect to the procedures for selecting IAB and IESG   members, the procedures that were in place derived from the creation   of the Internet Society (ISOC) and the ISOC's sponsorship of the IAB.   These procedures had been developed during the early part of 1992 and   had been adopted by the ISOC during its meeting in Kobe in June.   Hence, as fast as the ISOC was building the framework for supporting   the Internet community, the community was questioning its structure   and processes.   Following the IETF meeting, Vint Cerf, Internet Society president,   called for the formation of working group to examine the processes   and particularly the selection process (Attachment 1).  During   August, the working group was formed, I was asked to chair it, and a   charter for the WG was formulated (Attachment 2).  (The acronym is   due to Erik Huizer and originally stood for The Process for   Organization of Internet Standards and Development.  It was shortened   to fit into the space available on paper and in the IETF   Secretariat's database.)Deliberations: August through mid-November   The formation of the POISED WG provided a forum for discussion of   process issues.  An estimated 20 MB of messages filled up disks all   over the world.  Much of this discussion was fragmented or focused on   narrow issues.  The salient point that emerged was the need for a   well defined process for selecting leaders with explicit communityCrocker                                                         [Page 2]RFC 1396                     Poised Report                  January 1993   representation in the selection process.  There was also substantial   discussion of the role of the IAB -- to what extent should it make   decisions and to what extent should it provide technical guidance? --   and the relationship between the IAB and IESG.   After several weeks of discussion, Carl Malamud and I attempted to   capture the main elements of the discussion by presenting a specific   proposal for the reorganization of the entire structure.  The main   elements of the proposal were:      o Retention of the WG and area structure now in place within the        IETF.      o Replacement of the IAB and IESG by two boards, one devoted to        technical management and one devoted to oversight of the        process.      o Well defined terms for members of both boards.      o Selection by committees with input from the community.   This proposal was technically radical in the sense that it proposed   new structures to replace existing structures instead of proposing   changes within the existing system.  The proposal focused all further   discussion and set the stage for the fall IETF in mid-November in   Washington D.C.November IETF meeting   By virtue of the intensity of interest throughout the community, the   POISED WG was one of the focal points of the IETF meeting.  The   schedule included a plenary session Tuesday morning to present the   current state of the POISED WG discussions, a formal POISED WG   session Tuesday afternoon and an open IESG meeting Thursday evening   devoted to the POISED issues.  The formal schedule was only the tip   of the iceberg; numerous meetings took place over breakfast, lunch   and dinner, in the halls and off in the corners.  The more active   participants probably had a dozen or more separate meetings on this   over the three most active days, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.   Amidst all this frenetic activity, remarkable progress occurred at   two key points.  At the Tuesday afternoon POISED WG meeting, Lyman   Chapin, IAB chair, Phill Gross, IETF chair and IAB member, and other   IAB members proposed changes within the existing IAB/IESG structure   which converged with the process management elements of the Malamud-   Crocker proposal.  The key point was that all processing of standards   actions, including the final decision to advance a specification   along the standards track, would be made by the IESG.  This change inCrocker                                                         [Page 3]RFC 1396                     Poised Report                  January 1993   the process shortens the decision cycle and brings it a step closer   to the working group.   Convergence on this key point obviated a   radical proposal and signaled the building of a consensus on how the   standards process should evolve.  Over the next two days attention   then turned to the selection process.   As indicated above, there was a strong feeling in the community that   the IAB and IESG members should be selected with the consensus of the   community.  A natural mechanism for doing this is through formal   voting.  However, a formal voting process requires formal delineation   of who's enfranchised.  One of the strengths of the IETF is there   isn't any formal membership requirement, nor is there a tradition of   decision through  votes.  Decisions are generally reached by   consensus with mediation by leaders when necessary.   Various formulas were considered, and the one that emerged was that   IAB and IESG members would be selected by a nomination and recruiting   committee.  The committee is to consist of seven members from the   community, with non-voting representatives from the IAB and IESG and   a non-voting chair provided by the ISOC.  The seven members are to be   volunteers, with selection by lot if there are more than seven   volunteers.  The only requirement for volunteers is they must have   attended two IETF meetings.  This requirement is designed to ensure   the nomination committee has some familiarity with the Internet   community and the standards process.   IAB and IESG members are to serve two years.  Half of each body is to   have terms starting in odd years, and half is to have terms starting   in even years.  Selections to the IESG have to be ratified by the   IAB, and selections to the IAB had to be ratified by the ISOC.  In   the event that the nomination committee is unable to reach a   consensus on a single candidate for each position, it may forward   multiple nominations to the ratifying body, and the ratifying body   will select the candidate.   In addition to this selection process, a recall mechanism was   outlined using a similar scheme.  The ISOC is to supply an ombudsman   who will field complaints after all oversight processes have been   exhausted.  If the ombudsman is unable to resolve a complaint after a   cooling off period, a recall committee, selected at random among   volunteering community members, will consider the matter.  A two   thirds vote by the committee is necessary to remove someone.   This proposal was formulated and circulated during Wednesday and   Thursday and presented at the IESG open plenary.  In contrast to the   extraordinarily contentious open IESG meeting in Cambridge, this   meeting was characterized by a strenuous effort by numerous people,   representing diverse points of view, to reach consensus on thisCrocker                                                         [Page 4]RFC 1396                     Poised Report                  January 1993   proposal, and the meeting ended with a distinct decision to proceed   on this basis.  Given the strong consensus that emerged at that   meeting, the group decided to implement the selection process by the   next IETF meeting, with the new IESG and IAB members to begin their   terms at the termination of the IETF meeting in March.   On Friday, the IAB and IESG met jointly to determine what to do next.   Both groups agreed to implement the change in processing standards   actions quickly and cooperatively and to identify the positions which   are open for selection.  Within a couple of weeks, the IAB finished   processing the standards actions in its queue, and IESG began to   handle standards actions on its own.December ISOC meeting   The Internet Society Trustees met December 10 and 11 at CNRI in   Reston, VA.  The process and organization of the IAB and IETF was one   of their major concerns.  A session of the Trustees at 3:00 p.m. EST,   December 10, was broadcast via the Internet.  It was not clear how   many people listened, but Geoff Huston, Internet Trustee, was spliced   in separately from Australia.   At this session, I presented the POISED WG results deliberations and   asked on behalf of the IETF that the Trustees approve the selection   process described above.  For the long run, a new charter is needed.   Given the very compressed schedule for these activities, there has   not been time to draft and refine a new charter, so the Trustees were   asked to approve the general direction of the reorganization of the   IAB and IETF and give temporary approval to the selection process in   order to permit the first round of selections to proceed.   The Trustees expressed strong approval for the work of the POISED WG   and general approval for the direction of the effort.  One area of   concern for the Trustees is the legal liability of the Internet   Society regarding decisions the IESG might make in the future.  The   Trustees made it quite clear that they are not inclined to   micromanage the IETF process, but they do feel compelled to   understand the legal issues and help construct a charter which is   consistent with their responsibilities as Trustees.   The session adjourned with agreement to proceed on the current course   and for the IETF, IAB and ISOC Trustees to work together to draft the   appropriate charter.Crocker                                                         [Page 5]