Re: [Iasa20] 6635bis

Overall, this approach seems sensible to me.  The point of this document is
to describe the roles involved, and to minimize surprise with regard to how
the LLC arranges for those roles to be executed.  It should allow the LLC
flexibility where there's not a compelling need for constraint.  The
difference between employee and contractor does not seem salient in terms
of getting this work done.

--Richard

On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 2:14 PM Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> wrote:

> Hi!  While I am not sending this message on behalf of the IETF
> Administration LLC, I have to admit that I am reading the IASA2.0 I-Ds with
> more interest as an LLC officer because I am somewhere nearer the front of
> the go-to-jail line if something goes terribly wrong ;)
>
> With this in mind, after reading many of the the IASA2.0-related I-Ds the
> simple IAOC to LLC terminology swap totally makes sense.  For
> draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc6635bis, I am wondering whether more should be done.
> Specifically, I am wondering whether the language about how the RSE
> services are delivered should be loosened or at least made internally
> consistent.  As I read it, draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc6635bis does include a
> reference to an “employment agreement or contracting plans, as appropriate”
> as it pertains to the RSOC working with the LLC concerning RSE services.
> But, the rest of the draft, at least to me, reads as if the LLC will
> contract these services out with no wiggle room for an employee to do them.
>
> The slant towards contracting made sense prior to forming the LLC, but now
> that the LLC has been formed these functions could be performed by an
> employee.  For any given role, the LLC might find it preferable to have the
> role filled by an employee versus a contractor for the purposes of being
> able to offer better benefits, to more easily comply with employment/tax
> law, or for other reasons. The original IASA model didn’t offer as much
> flexibility since hiring decisions were ultimately ISOC’s.  If the language
> in the draft was tweaked to accommodate both contractors and employees then
> this document would not, in mind at least, unnecessarily restrict the LLC.
>
> Before I submit a list of potential edits to this list for
> draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc6635bis, I just wanted to see whether these type of
> changes would even be palatable?
>
> Cheers,
>
> spt
>
> PS - I am sending this message right before some family-related activities
> so I might be slow to respond.
> _______________________________________________
> iasa20 mailing list
> iasa20@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
>