IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Iasa20] outside the US [was Answers]

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Sat, 17 March 2018 22:25 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D051212D876 for <iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Mar 2018 15:25:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=kzOt9fgF; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=jyuH4rjj
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QwqofpGtyl1x for <iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Mar 2018 15:25:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.yitter.info (mx4.yitter.info [159.203.56.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63286126BF6 for <iasa20@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Mar 2018 15:25:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 413BFBE780 for <iasa20@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Mar 2018 22:24:45 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1521325485; bh=0coZPGa/ltXTaB+gj/UTGrsAC+xmeQVB02gGcOMGtUE=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=kzOt9fgFzaDKN+6R1Ug/TYvtXtT5PLKV2OUSVBYdw2a/+qGOs5sLkfHWgGVUoHon9 R92SbP74iS9/UyURAPBQWBpQl6rbGIc3OdccvdGYEVm0QcXezITU//d+kazQcJQ6DA lck4zLgUpFrcsnmubZ4LRbitfxcRtPjGxBP2qxYg=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx4.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7x8uOLljT_Xl for <iasa20@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Mar 2018 22:24:44 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 18:24:41 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1521325484; bh=0coZPGa/ltXTaB+gj/UTGrsAC+xmeQVB02gGcOMGtUE=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=jyuH4rjjST9jmcDUMoP2HhsSmSVmqiAeenpNk2kUlXVSRe1AsRiZPktqfQ0os1tL+ Xl2V9KVPPUPH1Wd6WGPVv4gCKHnm/hYOOhki89KgoOo0iuGcSrJy1GSlnBZgN06AMP NuHvhoPLOwRYd5eQvmvR3Q3n+kM2hDXrnY9EpKEs=
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: iasa20@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20180317222440.55qbx7hqr3fjrcpc@mx4.yitter.info>
References: <20180316211438.mqjf74376cfkhdht@mx4.yitter.info> <5cc63d89-dbe9-ebcc-b390-0e62a4f00157@gmail.com> <20180317081303.wnlkojbpt7keacnz@mx4.yitter.info> <660f86b7-e181-bc50-33c6-39b6de0f9917@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <660f86b7-e181-bc50-33c6-39b6de0f9917@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iasa20/8FNbBE7ug3Jks9KMfLXZQUHDe0Y>
Subject: Re: [Iasa20] outside the US [was Answers]
X-BeenThere: iasa20@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions relating to reorganising the IETF administrative structures in the so called “IASA 2.0” project. <iasa20.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/iasa20>, <mailto:iasa20-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/iasa20/>
List-Post: <mailto:iasa20@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iasa20-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20>, <mailto:iasa20-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 22:25:18 -0000

On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 08:48:15AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> of the IETF being "an organized activity of ISOC", there could be confusion
> in the future about the IETF being a separate organization.

If we're going to be a disregarded entity or a supporting organization
(i.e. a subsidiary), what's the confusion?  We get the advantage of
sorting out the money flows totally clearly, while yet still having
the "organized activity" relationship, it seems to me.  Indeed, the
relationship in some ways would be stronger, because there wouldn't be
this funny is-a-thing-but-not-a-thing that the IETF is today.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email