IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 16 February 2018 17:00 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 F25AA127775 for <iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 09:00:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 MlrE3u5j2EXy for <iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 09:00:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E67C7126579 for <iasa20@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 09:00:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5220220090 for <iasa20@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 12:07:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDFE180706 for <iasa20@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 12:00:11 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: iasa20@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <CAPdOjkhqQiqgeWUeMRb-Q3MzKtk=fEYxzQdmaaWoaGvZsQ8+Bg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4483006c-1652-7340-19f8-8d0579af8213@cdt.org> <CA+9kkMBK0YzWmVZqFnRuzKj_mTZeSHy4xhZSgrjjNr7NnO68DQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABtrr-V88xYcRDNMDz8aH_6Jq-fvtDLMwpYxxXFxLZv-S25SSg@mail.gmail.com> <CAL02cgQu-zi_FySTsDX_HbPOt+FrFYypSvPLwY8QfnfffR3QrQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMC_BjV4DdxNSk5LrgR0uU1vVF3YDyqobFYc7-t_idx60w@mail.gmail.com> <CAPdOjkhqQiqgeWUeMRb-Q3MzKtk=fEYxzQdmaaWoaGvZsQ8+Bg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7-RC3; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 12:00:11 -0500
Message-ID: <7244.1518800411@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iasa20/aBMQTr5m76P8EVhkQRYxhz0b4ts>
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 17:00:15 -0000

Brad Biddle <brad@biddle.law> wrote:
    > Not to speak for the design team (which I am not on), but FWIW I think
    > there is a strong case for Option 3 (the single-member LLC option). The
    > article linked at [1] below does a nice job of explaining some of the
    > general pros and cons of this framework. As applied to IETF, I think
    > the key advantages would be that (a) it would accomplish the goal of
    > giving the IETF independent legal existence, enabling independent
    > contracting, bank accounts, etc., (b) the existing IETF governance
    > structures could simply be imported wholesale into the LLC Operating
    > Agreement (as and if desired), so the transition could be essentially
    > invisible to IETF participants, and (c) IETF could avoid the
    > significant costs and risks associated with pursuing and maintaining
    > its own independent 501(c)(3) status. Also, while Joe's original email
    > characterized this option as providing IETF with less independence than
    > Option 2 (the Type 1 supporting org option), I don't think this is
    > accurate: i.e., for both Option 2 and Option 3 ISOC would have to
    > retain some formal control (to protect their own non-profit status and
    > otherwise comply with applicable law), but I think both options could
    > be structured to protect IETF's independence as a practical matter, and
    > I don't think Option 2 is necessarily better than Option 3 on this
    > front. Note the descriptions of operational independence in [1] -- it's
    > flagged as a potential bug from the perspective of the parent org, but
    > perhaps IETF would see this as a feature.

This is what I also concluded from reading the analysis document, and why, if
we are going to change from status quo (option IV), that (III) is the best choice to me.

    > 2. The Linux Foundation just adopted this same legal structure in
    > connection with their recently-announced Linux Foundation Networking
    > Fund. See [2].

Interesting to know, and hard to see this from afar....

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email