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

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:50 AM, Brian Carpenter <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On 17/02/2018 06:09, Michael Richardson wrote:
> ...
> > 1. I think that we want our own bank account.
>
> I have seen no consenus call to that effect. Personally, I think
> that we have no need of a bank account. It appears that we are in
> need of a primer for potential sponsors explaining how moneys sent
> to ISOC are applied to IETF needs.
> ...
>
> >
> > 3. I think that under Option III, that we would very CLEARLY be able to
> sign
> >    our own contracts.  Be they Executive Director, Secretariat,
> RFC-editor,
> >    or tools development.  I don't know that the community thinks this is
> >    high priority, but I think that it does matter.
>
> Why? When did the IETF ever suffer as a result of its contracts being
> signed by ISOC?
>

See, for instance:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-haberman-iasa20dt-recs-01#section-3.1.3

"

 For example, due to IETF's lack of legal status, contractual
   agreements must be signed by ISOC on behalf of the IETF.  There are
   occasions when a decision that is right for the IETF and desired by
   IETF leadership cannot be executed due to constraints posed by what
   ISOC can and cannot agree to itself.  For example, when IETF sought
   to acquire a recent piece of software for business purposes, ISOC
   would initially not agree to entering into an agreement with the
   software provider.  Ideally, IETF could make decisions free from
   operational and other constraints imposed by its relationship with
   ISOC."

-Ekr



Regards
>    Brian Carpenter
>    Department of Computer Science
>    The University of Auckland
>    http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/
>
> (I am currently sending all mail from this address
> due to a Gmail bug. I can still receive via Gmail.)
>
> _______________________________________________
> iasa20 mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
>