Re: [Iasa20] draft-haberman-iasa20dt-recs-00.txt

Hi Bob,

> On Jul 15, 2017, at 9:38 AM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>> I think it’s critical to understand the financial implications of the different model.
> 
> Acknowledged and agreed.

Another note here about the DT’s work scope, since this is something I talked with them about before they started: I agree as well, but thought it would be useful for the DT to generate a few options for initial discussion before asking them to produce a full-on financial plan attached to each option. For one thing, they had about six weeks to get a draft together, so the scope of their work needed to make it feasible to produce something for discussion in that time frame. Furthermore, if it were the case that the community has no interest in some of the options, then it would not much be worth investigating and proposing funding models for them. So getting some initial substantive feedback before doing that seemed like it might expedite the process.

Alissa

> 
>> I think it’s important that the IETF Trust should be kept of of this.
> 
> (I think you meant “out of this”?)
> 
> FWIW, and I’m not speaking for anyone else than myself here, but I definitely agree. I think the Trust could be a part of the changes, but only to the extent that you separate the members of Trust and any other board that governs the rest. I don’t believe it would be useful to merge the Trust’s account or role with other entities. Even if we were to create an independent IETF organisation, there are good reasons to keep the ownership of IETF IPR separate. Separation of concerns, ensuring that IETF IPR is separate from any financial issues that IETF might otherwise have, etc.
> 
> Jari
> 
> _______________________________________________
> iasa20 mailing list
> iasa20@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20