[ih] This Review is for Everyone

[Brian E Carpenter]

Hi Steve,

On 13-Mar-26 12:39, Steve Crocker via Internet-history wrote:
> Adding one minor but relevant detail to Dave's note,
> 
> Carl Malmud and I chaired the POISED working group thatresulted from the
> Kobe Trauma.  POISED made two significant changes to the IETF's
> organizational structure.  The authority for approving RFCs moved from the
> IAB to the IESG, and a Nomcom was created to fill  IETF leadership
> positions and the IAB.  These changes also established a judicial
> function.  The IAB became the primary body to hear appeals, but ISOC was
> given an appellate role above the IAB.  If I recall correctly, ISOC never
> expressed any desire or need to take on this role, but they were a
> convenient choice for a level above the IAB.  I don't know whether this was
> ever exercised, 

I believe not.

> and I don't know if this role still persists.  

It does, and it remains in the current rfc2026bis draft.

   Brian


> (POISSON was
> the follow-on effort to POISED.  I did not track the details., so I don;t
> know if ISOC's role continued, expanded or was diminished.)
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2026 at 3:23 AM Dave Crocker via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 3/12/2026 9:56 AM, Craig Partridge wrote:
>>>
>>> As you well know, the IETF did exist before ISOC.  But we had to
>>> reverse engineer things so that when ISOC was created, IETF was
>>> subordinate to it, so you that you and I (and others) as members of
>>> the then IESG and IETF would not be sued for standards decisions.
>>>
>>> As a result, I suspect if ISOC disappeared now, yes IETF would too...
>>
>>
>> I suspect it wouldn't.  And I was not (merely) being snarky.
>>
>> Unless things have changed profoundly, in recent years, ISOC provides no
>> operational direction to the IETF and never has.  When I say the IETF
>> 'contracted with' ISOC for some services, I mean that as substantive,
>> relational reality.
>>
>> It's not that the services ISOC provides are not valuable, but that they
>> were delegated /to/ ISOC, rather than coming /from/ within ISOC and then
>> being imposed on t/he IETF.
>>
>> In operational terms, nothing about the way IETF has ever conducted its
>> decision-processes has ever had a feeling of subordination to ISOC.  (I
>> suppose annual funding discussions might be taken as, at most, roughly
>> egalitarian.)
>>
>> I'll add that nothing about ISOC's conduct -- unless this has changed in
>> very recent years -- has ever had the tone of a superior.  Quite the
>> opposite, based on the diligent caution I always saw, in how ISOC
>> interacted with the IETF.
>>
>> Ignoring who generated what and why, note that be basic creation history
>> was:
>>
>>      1986: IAB and IETF formed
>>
>>      1989: IETF Area Directors first appointed
>>
>>      1992:  Kobe Trauma, Poised working group, authority revision
>>
>>      1992: ISOC formed.
>>
>> As one of those first Area directors, the facts and tone of that
>> sequence were interesting.
>>
>> The IETF was fully subordinate to IAB authority, which was quite
>> vigorously asserted.
>>
>> What I'm calling the Kobe Trauma happened three years later, producing
>> what was largely a reversal of the authority relationship, in terms of
>> IETF operations.
>>
>> Up through the formation of ISOC, these activities survived with what
>> was sometimes called a "Daddy Pays" model.  Arguably, that's still the
>> model, although Daddy now pays only a percentage.  But even when it was
>> earlier Daddies, the sources of funding exerted close to no visible
>> control over the processes.
>>
>> If ISOC went away, the IETF would have a funding shortfall, and it would
>> have some holes in its oversight and appointment model.
>>
>> Funding is called that because it is never fun to satisfy the
>> requirement, but I suspect it would at least be a tractable task.
>> Filling the other holes would probably be no more than a hassle.
>>
>>
>> d/
>>
>> --
>> Dave Crocker
>>
>> dhc at dcrocker.net
>> bluesky: @dcrocker.bsky.social
>> mast: @dcrocker at mastodon.social
>> +1.408.329.0791
>>
>> Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter
>> Northern California Coastal Region
>> Information & Planning Coordinator
>> American Red Cross
>> dave.crocker2 at redcross.org
>> --
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>> -
>> Unsubscribe:
>> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
>>
> 
>