Re: IETF Secretariat continues under new approach

Alissa,

I've no insight into why the decision was made, but the AMSL contract 
arrangement has been in place for nearly 20 years, which means that a 
huge quantity of the IETF's administrative knowledge is - as I 
understand it - subject to a retendering process every couple of years. 
The usual rationales given for retendering processes are to do with 
governance conerns and organisational motivation, both of which are 
nominally fine.

The outcome of a tendering process would be that the contract would 
either be granted to AMSL, or not.  If it were granted to AMSL, would 
any serious second or third party concerns about the awarding of the 
contract be addressed by the tendering process? It's a hard position to 
defend.  And if the tender were to be given to another company on the 
basis of some metric leaderboard system, would AMSL then be replaced by 
an organisation of similar competence and experience, or would 
institutional knowledge would be lost in the process?

Both outcomes create major institutional risks for the IETF: one of 
governance, the other of pure practicality.

Zooming out to the helicopter view, this isn't a contract for 
shelf-stackers at the local supermarket or for operating a script-based 
call-centre. It's highly specialised work and AMSL have tailored their 
work outcomes to provide a high quality match for the needs of the LLC. 
Replacing this would be difficult.

As a separate concern, many legal jurisdictions have changed their 
positions about contract vs non-contract staff over the years. At least 
in Europe, most countries now implement a system that if contractor A 
works exclusively for a company B over a specific (and short!) period of 
time and under conditions where company B sets the work and work 
practices, that they're effectively employees of company B, regardless 
of whether there are intermediates in the middle, and also regardless of 
what written contractual agreements might be in place. There are several 
mechanisms for handling this in practice, e.g. TUPE (Transfer of 
Undertakings), or an Employer of Record arrangement, and others, but the 
bottom line is that in these jurisdictions, if the relationship between 
contractor A and company B looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, 
it's legally considered to be a duck. Again I have no insight into 
whether this was the case in the AMSL / IETF LLC relationship, but at 
least in some jurisdictions, this is a thing.

I agree that more background information could be provided.

Nick

Alissa Cooper wrote on 09/04/2026 14:23:
> Hi Mirjam,
>
> I was just reading through this blog post and found it opaque. Are the Secretariat now LLC staff? I.e., are their performance reviews and compensation determined by the LLC? Is there any difference between their status as employees and the RPC staff, which the LLC also took over several years ago? These seem like the kinds of things that would have been straightforward to explain in the blog post. If these are the implications of the announced changes, it seems that the LLC now employs 30 people.
>
> If it is the case that the Secretariat staff are now being managed by the LLC rather than AMS, that seems like a very significant change. It would be good to understand what the “major strategic risk” was that the LLC perceived, especially given the unique investment that AMS has made over decades to adapt to so many particular needs and wants that the IETF has expressed. When bidding out the contract, there was always a chance that AMS could take its business elsewhere, but presumably the process of the competitive bidding has functioned as an important check and motivator for AMS to deliver the services that meet the IETF’s needs. If the Secretariat staff are now LLC employees, that check is gone. Gone too are all the benefits to the IETF of the cross-pollination that occurred within AMS, as AMS staff support multiple different kinds of technical organizations and bring their knowledge of how other orgs do things to their work for the IETF. I always appreciated that broader perspective in my interactions with AMS staff. The IETF is a special place, but it can be incredibly helpful to learn from outside.
>
> If this is the change that led to Stephanie’s departure, what a true loss for the IETF community!
>
> Alissa
>
>
>> On Mar 31, 2026, at 4:53 PM, IETF Administration LLC Board of Directors Chair <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> As of 1 April 2026, the IETF Secretariat function will be staffed through an Employer of Record (EOR) arrangement rather than a service contract awarded through a Request for Proposal (RFP) process as it has been until now.
>>
>> The IETF Secretariat provides important support for two key parts of the IETF:
>>
>> 1. IETF meetings, and
>> 2. Community & leadership groups (IAB, IESG, LLC Board) support.
>>
>> The transition is being structured so as not to affect the kind or quality of support provided. IETF participants should see no difference when the changeover happens. For more detail, see:
>> https://www.ietf.org/blog/secretariat-continuation
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Mirjam Kühne
>> Chair, Board of Directors
>> IETF Administration LLC
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IETF-Announce mailing list -- [email protected]
>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]