Re: [Iasa20] IASA 2.0 outcome properties

[Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>]

> So I still think your current wording goes too much
> towards specific solutions - and extrapolating from one instance
> (IAOC managing IAD) to handling 20 folks the same way seems to me
> to be only one specific solution. And I also continue to think
> that that specific solution ends up with (or significantly moves
> us towards) what I would call the major downside of incorporation
> and membership.

I think we can keep incorporation & membership and supervision
of workers doing things for IETF as separate items, I don’t think
they are connected at that level.

We could have an interesting discussion, I think, about the numbers,
how many people need to be involved or for what purpose. Or
exactly what the structure is for arranging their oversight. But I think
we reasonably need to conclude that if people do work for IETF’s
benefit, then there needs to be some oversight. Regardless of
whether those workers get paid by IETF or ISOC.

(And I wouldn’t say there is no oversight today, but I do believe
that it can be significantly improved.)

Also I’m not sure the employee / employee of ISOC / contractor
distinction is all that important. Think legal services, for instance,
regardless of how we’ve organised it today (contracted), it is easy
to imagine we might have had a different structure. But no
matter what the structure is, I think it would be clear that the IAOC
should be ultimately in charge of the oversight of the people
doing work for that function.

Jari