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

I'm not sure, we should clarify. I believe the type 1 SO here is the same
as that for PIR, so I suspect it's what we would call participants.

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 19:34 Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Joe,
>
> Thanks for forwarding this.  I do have one clarifying question.  In the
> section on the Type 1 supporting organization, it says "Can have members
> that are not ISOC members." but also says "ISOC must serve as the sole
> member of the corporation with the right to appoint at least a
> majority of the directors."  ISOC is the sole member of PIR, and I had
> made the assumption that it would be the sole member of a new Type 1
> supporting organization, should that be the path selected.  This, however,
> seems to contemplate members beyond ISOC, and I'm unsure who or what those
> could be in our context.   Or does the first usage simply mean what we
> would call participants in the IETF context, saying that the participants
> in the supporting organization do not also need to be considered "members"
> of ISOC?
>
> thanks,
>
> Ted
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:29 PM, Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joe@cdt.org> wrote:
>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> I am writing on behalf of the IASA 2.0 Design Team to update you on
>> progress since Singapore.
>>
>> The Design Team and Alissa, Sean Turner, and Richard Barnes (ISOC Board
>> members) asked ISOC's tax law counsel at the law firm Morgan Lewis to
>> examine the options we are considering in a new IASA 2.0 structure, in
>> terms of governance, finances, and administrative complexity.
>>
>> The response memo is attached, covering the spectrum of options from the
>> status quo to increasingly independent models. The memo covers four
>> options:
>>
>> 1. Substantial independence: an independent 501(c)(3) org;
>> 2. Significant independence: a 501(c)(3) Type 1 Supporting Org;
>> 3. Weak independence: an LLC that is a "disregarded entity"; and,
>> 4. Status quo: continuing as an activity of ISOC.
>>
>> Note that the design team has some additional questions that we hope to
>> clarify including the implications of the public support test, board
>> composition and control, and potential costs (sunk/ongoing) of a
>> transition to each model. We'd like to hear from all of you as to your
>> thoughts, either in terms of clarification or if this analysis affects
>> which model you prefer.
>>
>> If questions emerge around particular themes we can work with ISOC on
>> clarifications.
>>
>> thank you,
>>
>> Joe (writing on behalf of the DT)
>>
>> --
>> Joseph Lorenzo Hall
>> Chief Technologist, Center for Democracy & Technology [
>> https://www.cdt.org]
>> 1401 K ST NW STE 200, Washington DC 20005
>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=1401+K+ST+NW+STE+200,+Washington+DC+20005&entry=gmail&source=g>
>> -3497
>> e: joe@cdt.org, p: 202.407.8825, pgp: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key
>> Fingerprint: 3CA2 8D7B 9F6D DBD3 4B10  1607 5F86 6987 40A9 A871
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> iasa20 mailing list
>> iasa20@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
>>
>> --
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
Chief Technologist, Center for Democracy & Technology [https://www.cdt.org]
1401 K ST NW STE 200, Washington DC 20005-3497
e: joe@cdt.org, p: 202.407.8825, pgp: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key
Fingerprint: 3CA2 8D7B 9F6D DBD3 4B10  1607 5F86 6987 40A9 A871