IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Thu, 15 February 2018 01:59 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 B18C4126D05 for <iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 17:59:50 -0800 (PST)
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=fuV6ovbu; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=nlw9NpkC
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 6Yjcx9CVnGdN for <iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 17:59:49 -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 271B5126C3D for <iasa20@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 17:59:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 585EEBD33A for <iasa20@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Feb 2018 01:59:18 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1518659958; bh=fU9gVAGZ9nequfUipTc6utAdo8D7RI4tlmXCS9c00+E=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=fuV6ovbugdayKtuiy145xDkl4hJEC3s7GINO/+wikb4615no5/2jRB1+IUtpBDaH3 CogfOibXiS9eaHeKamxGFRtwVGij7HARJyzY5S5byw0BO3jTTITcL/pX8hB7SqgsZk uPEKn/e/P/uneK/+pflimE3UolHjlAE/DHw7blL4=
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 Gr7JS6ymxq2S for <iasa20@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Feb 2018 01:59:17 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 20:59:14 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1518659957; bh=fU9gVAGZ9nequfUipTc6utAdo8D7RI4tlmXCS9c00+E=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=nlw9NpkCtvf6UeGKKa8jEW2oMX5Gj7hqUB6P/ugWu0uFSBUC90kdNokgq8yYv+Fc2 spjFvIevuQsZN6lktKzh8IqOezDjYcVrJPddcG0rfBOsGyScpjzjeRPk+/+4jgXtS6 uZC+Wk/xX3dOZSaWMzQ9IpDL2QxuLLxdMhdEucjQ=
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: iasa20@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20180215015914.vgqgdpb5avtptaap@mx4.yitter.info>
References: <4483006c-1652-7340-19f8-8d0579af8213@cdt.org> <ac8f3a00-b22a-ff84-ba81-14e824697148@cs.tcd.ie> <CABtrr-Wo7Laxvcvf+rwJ9Yip9-T78tA2dGqborcWd4gt1FM9eQ@mail.gmail.com> <0ac3fbe1-aab6-a32a-951e-a9211ac14ab8@cs.auckland.ac.nz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <0ac3fbe1-aab6-a32a-951e-a9211ac14ab8@cs.auckland.ac.nz>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iasa20/Edeve_KpdkaQXSwXE8LKMnCRu3k>
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: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 01:59:51 -0000

Hi Brian (and Stephen too):

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 02:25:30PM +1300, Brian Carpenter wrote:
> I'm with Stephen, setting up a new org of any kind is unnecessary
> and costly (in many ways). But absolutely certainly if we did go that
> way, setting it upoutside US jurisdiction must be considered and is probably
> preferable. Switzerland or the Netherlands are two obvious choices, but
> of course the field is broad.

Does this include Joe's cases (2) and (3) as "new org of any kind"?
Because I seem to recall that this makes things inordinately
complicated (I recall this from when we investigated it as part of the
ICANN/IANA changes).

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email