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

I think the IAD and IAOC have been doing their job well if this appears 
to IETF participants to be an occasional and minor hassle.

In practical terms, it is neither.

As noted during the last IASA 2.0 session, it’s hard to expose all the 
experienced examples in the detail that you might find compelling, for 
the simple reason that it is (somebody else’s) business and it’s not 
polite.

But, the bottom line, as expressed at the last IASA 2.0 meeting 
(including the support of the ISOC CEO and the ISOC Board Chair), is 
that the current relationship no longer fits — either organization.  
This is a positive sign of growth — for both organizations.

Leslie.

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises
ldaigle@thinkingcat.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------

On 16 Feb 2018, at 14:02, Brian Carpenter wrote:

> On 17/02/2018 07:54, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:50 AM, Brian Carpenter 
>> <brian@cs.auckland.ac.nz>
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> iasa20 mailing list
> iasa20@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20