[Iasa20] nomcom appointees to option 2 or option 3 entities

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 14 March 2018 14:04 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 3A3F71273B1 for <iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 07:04:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.011
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 itBIOJ8PVoWg for <iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 07:04:20 -0700 (PDT)
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 8D256124D6C for <iasa20@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 07:04:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2FB320091; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 10:12:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B27C98115F; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 10:04:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
cc: iasa20@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <1DFB2924-5C37-49A9-BF01-2A458B22E7CC@cooperw.in>
References: <E596FE5B-A6F9-481D-B2BA-07401B416E79@cooperw.in> <05C67DDF-29B1-433E-886A-EC9C2134BC39@cooperw.in> <1DFB2924-5C37-49A9-BF01-2A458B22E7CC@cooperw.in>
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: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 10:04:19 -0400
Message-ID: <29374.1521036259@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iasa20/gcNvbNuHQPeS39yw4uM_oPcsmBQ>
Subject: [Iasa20] nomcom appointees to option 2 or option 3 entities
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: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 14:04:23 -0000

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
    > 2. For option 2 and option 3, we’d like to understand what kinds of
    >provisions could be included in an operating agreement between ISOC and
    >the IETF entity regarding board appointments and control, assuming we
    >want to maximize the IETF’s ability to determine the composition of the
    >board.

    ac> Awaiting the lawyers on this.

    > Under option 2 (the Type I supporting organization), it would be
    > possible for ISOC to delegate the authority to appoint board members of
    > the IETF administrative organization to a subcommittee of the ISOC
    > Board. So, for example, it would be possible for ISOC to delegate this
    > authority to a subcommittee consisting of the four IAB-appointed board
    > members, and for that arrangement to be documented in an operating
    > agreement between ISOC and the IETF administrative organization. The
    > IRS may raise a question about this but the attorneys did not consider
    > it to be a serious risk. Under option 2 it would not be possible for
    > ISOC to delegate this authority outside of the board (e.g., to the IAB
    > or the IETF nomcom).

    > Under option 3 (the LLC as a disregarded entity of ISOC), it would be
    > possible for ISOC to delegate the authority to appoint board members of
    > the IETF administrative organization to a subcommittee of the ISOC
    > Board or to a non-board body such as the IAB. This arrangement could be
    > documented in an operating agreement between ISOC and the IETF
    > administrative entity, and that agreement would also need to make clear
    > that ISOC retains all economic interest in the LLC.

So in option 3, we can do the same thing as option 2 (sub-cmte of ISOC
board), but we can *also* delegate to an entity "such as" the IAB.
(I knew I like option 3 better...)

Does "such as" include the IESG or the Nomcom directly?
Given that IAOC appointees have to be confirmed by the IESG under the current
setup, it seems that the new entity should also be confirmed by the IESG.

Or is the IAB special because the ISOC board confirms the IAB nominations?


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