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

[Brian Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 17/02/2018 07:54, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> 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."

OK. So we'd trade off that very occasional sort of hassle against a new
Board to staff, a new Advisory Council to staff, and all the overheads
of running a separate accounting, auditing and tax return setup.

    Brian