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

Brian Carpenter <brian@cs.auckland.ac.nz> Fri, 16 February 2018 18:50 UTC

Return-Path: <brian@cs.auckland.ac.nz>
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 06036126C2F for <iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 10:50:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=auckland.ac.nz
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 BOp1SRfu1T7p for <iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 10:50:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4-int.auckland.ac.nz (mx4-int.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.125.246]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46FDB12422F for <iasa20@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 10:50:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=auckland.ac.nz; i=@auckland.ac.nz; q=dns/txt; s=mail; t=1518807031; x=1550343031; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ey/k5sQUOf9mg8CIa5nnJ9/zvbVMBNWdhF6k/egTxpQ=; b=m2CAqhrqrp34HRlAqcIIQvxVVe2uPY4Z7lBD4xL+ZMYJMTXf20ej08z7 RshAfMvepZ35eA1tXrxi/9DyaF8pyJK8fQ3ffUBx675qVzZ8ka4c438ci njLK3M+OBBa6vu9DzAToQzTgwnsR6gfYc22znFDx3YlsN/PeYJfrSLQkP cNNSn1sOiY9T7LJV1Fub/XGE3UaXxB1JukvrtO9FcZq+1Q1mMW5j0BcZa Y7vfNKgFB+KmlFqmOvpcxN6uQjS4KkjVntVF3/cQC9z9HTS3OJjIWMRDh FLshNQAlFK20hLbZjcxnEjZdHZIgSB80rerlIEPS1TFXv1gHye/1Zsybh w==;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,520,1511780400"; d="scan'208";a="1612712"
X-Ironport-HAT: BAD-REPUTATION - $RELAY-AUTH-THROTTLE
X-Ironport-Source: 111.69.225.189 - Outgoing - Outgoing-SSL
Received: from 189.225.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz (HELO [192.168.178.30]) ([111.69.225.189]) by mx4-int.auckland.ac.nz with ESMTP; 17 Feb 2018 07:50:28 +1300
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, iasa20@ietf.org
References: <4483006c-1652-7340-19f8-8d0579af8213@cdt.org> <20182.1518727709@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <C77B41DA-268D-4F0E-8AC8-F2E292E38B14@cooperw.in> <9631.1518800971@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
From: Brian Carpenter <brian@cs.auckland.ac.nz>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <be961111-9bed-086e-a0ab-b220125a438d@cs.auckland.ac.nz>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 07:50:40 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9631.1518800971@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iasa20/QxTPJ4f1LGtn6IXHcFQOn3186j0>
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: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 18:50:34 -0000

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?

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.)