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

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Brian Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >> The nature of the options present in the memo has nothing to do with
    >> the nationalities of the people on the design team. It has to do with
    >> the fact that ISOC is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization incorporated
    >> in the US, and that the preferences expressed in the hums in Singapore
    >> were for options that maintain the IETF’s administrative activity under
    >> ISOC’s umbrella [1].

    > Indeed, that's why I pointed out that ISOC has at least one overseas
    > office. The US might be the most obvious option but that doesn't mean
    > it's the best.

My instinct is that setting up a non-US entity would be no easier starting
From scratch then starting from ISOC's 501(c)3 status.
(I come to this trying to setup Cdn branches of various US based non-profits,
and observing the fate of a few that failed.  I've also been on the board of
6 Ottawa based non-profits over the past 20 years, and done all the paperwork
for a few of them)

Or to put it another way: if having a non-US ISOC/IAOC equivalent entity is
worthwhile doing, then it's worthwhile doing even if we *are* going to create
some new (I),(II) or (III) structure inside the US.

I'm claiming the cost is probably the same regardless of what we do today.

I think that if we were going to do such a thing, that the first question
we/ISOC/DT should ask is to those contributing money:  are there other
jurisdictions where you'd like to contribute to ISOC?
(/me Eyes cash in Google and Apple's Dublin banks...)

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-