Re: [Iasa20] 6635bis

A comment in-line.

On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 2:14 PM Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> wrote:

> Hi!  While I am not sending this message on behalf of the IETF
> Administration LLC, I have to admit that I am reading the IASA2.0 I-Ds with
> more interest as an LLC officer because I am somewhere nearer the front of
> the go-to-jail line if something goes terribly wrong ;)
>
> With this in mind, after reading many of the the IASA2.0-related I-Ds the
> simple IAOC to LLC terminology swap totally makes sense.  For
> draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc6635bis, I am wondering whether more should be done.
> Specifically, I am wondering whether the language about how the RSE
> services are delivered should be loosened or at least made internally
> consistent.  As I read it, draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc6635bis does include a
> reference to an “employment agreement or contracting plans, as appropriate”
> as it pertains to the RSOC working with the LLC concerning RSE services.
> But, the rest of the draft, at least to me, reads as if the LLC will
> contract these services out with no wiggle room for an employee to do them.
>
> The slant towards contracting made sense prior to forming the LLC, but now
> that the LLC has been formed these functions could be performed by an
> employee.  For any given role, the LLC might find it preferable to have the
> role filled by an employee versus a contractor for the purposes of being
> able to offer better benefits, to more easily comply with employment/tax
> law, or for other reasons. The original IASA model didn’t offer as much
> flexibility since hiring decisions were ultimately ISOC’s.  If the language
> in the draft was tweaked to accommodate both contractors and employees then
> this document would not, in mind at least, unnecessarily restrict the LLC.
>
> First, I really appreciate the LLC (or you as an individual) asking this
question of the community in this context; it's an important enough to get
community input on rather than deciding off-line.

Second, I do think that having both models be possible would be a useful
change.  I certainly don't want to remove the current model as a
possibility, but being able to have an employee relationship may make it
easier to be flexible in the future.

regards,

Ted

> Before I submit a list of potential edits to this list for
> draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc6635bis, I just wanted to see whether these type of
> changes would even be palatable?
>
> Cheers,
>
> spt
>
> PS - I am sending this message right before some family-related activities
> so I might be slow to respond.
> _______________________________________________
> iasa20 mailing list
> iasa20@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
>