Re: [Iasa20] Memo exploring options for IASA 2.0 models

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Sat, 17 February 2018 13:41 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 2332512D868 for <iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Feb 2018 05:41:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.289
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.289 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FIN_FREE=2.289, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=YWZNvFhi; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=gGwhnexJ
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 RRtEBcuI-foG for <iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Feb 2018 05:41:55 -0800 (PST)
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 1B0C412D7F5 for <iasa20@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Feb 2018 05:41:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71911BD351 for <iasa20@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Feb 2018 13:41:54 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1518874914; bh=MvjCrCylBECJe0OdWMv3jltcbT1kdCUEfQDBwk/WVFI=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=YWZNvFhij1GgZ9QObVrjuCBUFXYj9qechGbkNe9pNpc37oC19jPk9MGdYQ4W9fL0k ordLgXbWAQo+CCQgb0h8+fpCZ9yNqdb8A3/0xYruNYLrKhmy7xdIl/lhve7dQn9IiC 2ud2kDDzs4wq5BrrN8BMRAG01UP+NXAWxmO6x94E=
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 7symWZEIO4yY for <iasa20@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Feb 2018 13:41:53 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 08:41:52 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1518874913; bh=MvjCrCylBECJe0OdWMv3jltcbT1kdCUEfQDBwk/WVFI=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=gGwhnexJVjYINNhWkD9P0cuMz2pOPud7WE0RPKC/UMKFByVanUSKWIEpUovi5bGYJ 8QrD2+ug0GMIPU+8Bll6Haz4xvL8si5x05eenO1W0/RxOjqoIpRTfzDc7/ZkHq3JhD N/tEUg++3Vx0RLupDDAcexDz8x4+yBJgtzhawD3I=
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: iasa20@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20180217134152.45fgwxqipuplwhp7@mx4.yitter.info>
References: <20182.1518727709@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <C77B41DA-268D-4F0E-8AC8-F2E292E38B14@cooperw.in> <9631.1518800971@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <be961111-9bed-086e-a0ab-b220125a438d@cs.auckland.ac.nz> <20180216185551.cgigor7up7uowmr6@mx4.yitter.info> <40a7ffe5-8417-cfdf-15dc-6603a5c7978f@cs.auckland.ac.nz> <20180216192334.jjgn6bineinfofux@mx4.yitter.info> <5327daa0-1d54-f051-e620-7c8f4bdc4870@cs.auckland.ac.nz> <20180216223021.jxetl5cz4uzem24c@mx4.yitter.info> <5657276F-E288-42C7-ABA1-5F0A16557B49@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <5657276F-E288-42C7-ABA1-5F0A16557B49@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iasa20/DnokzLCpIUCfRO4WH4zCGxoqSU4>
Subject: Re: [Iasa20] Memo exploring options for IASA 2.0 models
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 Feb 2018 13:41:56 -0000

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 03:00:08PM -0800, Bob Hinden wrote:
> 
> Seems to me that as long as ISOC provides most of the support for the IETF (and I think that true in each options presented), doesn’t this just morph into "ISOC is paying for the IETF, I gave money to the ISOC, why are you asking me again?".  Unless we are financially independent of ISOC, I don’t think moving to a new entity will really change this.
> 

I don't think that's right.  Your argument depends on the "fungible
funds" stance, which is indeed a current problem.  Even people who
understand how to earmark funds donated to ISOC for the IETF currently
argue that this just allows ISOC to redirect money that _would_ have
gone to the IETF to some other activity.

Now, we have not discussed the practicalities of operating under any
of the new models, but I would anticipate an arrangement in which the
IETFAdminOrg had responsibility for some budget and operating within
it.  This would mean ensuring that the IETF account (rather than the
ISOC general account) was funded appropriately to meet the IETF needs.
Money could flow back and forth across that boundary still, but it
would be a more formal process and would necessitate more obvious
controls.

This would quite likely mean that some of the historical tendency to
figure out what to spend and then figure out how much money we needed
to ask ISOC for would need to change, at least over time.  In my
opinion, that sort of discipline would not be a bad thing.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com