Internet Society Advisory Council BOF (ISOC) Reported by George Clapp/Ameritech Membership Status The group briefly reviewed the statistics on the individual and organizational members of the Internet Society (the information was extracted from an e-mail distributed by Tony Rutkowski). As of 2 February 1994, there are 121 ISOC Advisory Council organizational members. As of 1 December 1994, there are 3741 individual ISOC members (from 141 countries). The countries with 1% or more of the total members are: Australia 60 Canada 100 Czech Republic 42 France 56 Germany 87 Italy 47 Japan 223 Netherlands 82 Spain 40 Switzerland 45 Thailand 87 United Kingdom 120 USA 1960 November ISOC AC Meeting The group turned to a discussion of the following recommendations made at a meeting of the ISOC AC officers in Reston, Virginia, on Wednesday, 16 November 1994. The participants of the meeting were: Rick Adams, officer; George Clapp, officer; Mike Conn (by phone), officer emeritus; C. Joe Pasquariello, officer; Nicholas Trio, officer; and Tony Rutkowski, convener. The following resolutions/recommendations were made: 1. A draft charter for the Advisory Council will be distributed for comment. 2. The ISOC AC officers shall serve for a term of 3 years, after which they are not eligible to serve for a consecutive term. After a hiatus of one term, however, they are eligible to serve again. 3. The officers shall not bear titles (i.e., no Chair, Vice-Chair, etc.). 4. Request the Board of Trustees (BoT) to modify the bylaws to seat the four officers of AC as voting members of the BoT. 5. Recommend that the special status of the Charter ISOC Members be revoked, while recognizing their contribution. 6. Funding for administrative tasks for the Internet presently comes from multiple sources to multiple destinations. For better coordination and to establish the role of the ISOC, this funding should be channeled through the ISOC. 7. Tony Rutkowski will coordinate a Birds of a Feather (BOF) session for the ISOC AC at the next IETF. Discussion Discussion focused on recommendations 4, 5, and 6. There was general agreement of recommendation 4; no one voiced opposition. A debate was related within the Board of Trustees over whether the ISOC is an professional association of individuals or of organizations. There was general agreement of recommendation 5. There was an attempt to clarify recommendation 6. The following proposed objective of the ISOC was referenced (Tony Rutkowski, source): ``Coordinating and progressively funding all global internet administrative infrastructure, such as naming and addressing, standards secretariat, etc.'' The following points were made (in no particular order): o We need to know where the funding is going. The benefit of the funded work must have some significance to the organization and to the country in which the organization resides. An illustrative comment was, ``As long as it's global, it's fine.'' o Will the organizational dues increase? o Will the funding organizations (e.g., NSF) consent to have their funds administered by ISOC? o The ISOC should assert that internet addresses are their intellectual property and that they shall administer them. There was debate whether this meant that the ISOC would directly administer or oversee the administration of the addresses. o The role of the ISOC was characterized as the following: - Making sure ``it'' gets done (e.g., naming and addressing, RFC editorship). - Providing a place for liability. - Acting as the focal organization as administrative responsibility for the Internet shifts away from existing bodies (e.g., US Federal agencies). - Acting as a focal point for the general public for information concerning the Internet. This was emphasized as perhaps the prime purpose of the ISOC. Recommendations and Decisions o The ISOC should release an Annual Report. o At the beginning of a calendar year, the ISOC should distribute an agenda listing objectives for the year. o The ISOC AC will convene a meeting at every IETF meeting.