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

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

On 11/07/17 20:58, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Stephen Farrell
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> - IASA++ seems the obviously right option to me.
>>   The other two structures have either a "pro" or
>>   a "con" (depending on one's opinion) which is
>>   that the IETF becomes an incorporated entity.
>>   I think the effort to reach consensus on that
>>   topic could de-rail the iasa2 work and we'd risk
>>   losing the increased transparency etc. we want to
>>   get. So that'd just leave IASA++ as being the
>>   only feasible option.
> 
> 
> Hi Stephen!
> 
> Can you say a bit more why the two more legal separation/incorporation
> options are obviously not right to you?
> 
> The reason I ask is that we consciously tried to bound the solution
> space and having an enhanced status quo, some of the benefits of legal
> separation, and then full fledged legal separation seemed like the
> right way to do that.
> 
> If we are missing any gleans on the IASA++ options, it would be great
> to get that into list discussion if you are game. Thanks as always for
> wonderful feedback.

You're too nice:-)

As I kinda said in response to Jari, I fear that the
changes I'd most like to see (transparency++) would
get lost in the noise of all the added overhead of
the larger organisational changes.

I guess that's based on seeing how horrible the IANA
transition was - such a simple change required such
a huge effort. Of course, iasa/2 is much more IETF
internal, but I'd still fear that a lot of the same
cruft would accrue.

Cheers,
S.


> 
> best, Joe
>