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

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

On 14/02/18 23:48, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
> No, we haven't explicitly considered that and this is definitely specific
> to US law. Are there promising hybrids you'd suggest, 

Not doing it would be my "hybrid" suggestion:-)

> or is this just to
> point out (rightly) how complex the design space is?

That, but also to point out that "investigate only US-based"
would itself be a decision that'd need to be made, presumably
before significant effort was devoted to US-based scenarios
for new organisational structures. So it's not just a complex
design space, but also one where there could be numerous points
at which consensus calls would be needed, each of which has
the potential to be tricky, even with everyone on the same
page, more-or-less.

S.


> 
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 18:44 Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> 
>>
>> Hi Joe,
>>
>> I'm generally not in favour of most of the "forming a
>> new organisation" propositions, but am nonetheless
>> curious as to why all of the options here are US-based.
>> Did the DT not consider any other jurisdictions?
>>
>> Sorry if I'm forgetting if that was previously discussed,
>> and it'd be entirely reasonable if this is considered the
>> easiest thing to check first, but I wondered.
>>
>> Ta,
>> S.
>>
>> PS: One of the reasons I'm not that much in favour of
>> the "forming a new organisation" options is that that'd
>> lead to a bunch of questions like the jurisdiction one,
>> each of which may take some time to handle.
>>
>> On 14/02/18 23:29, Joseph Lorenzo Hall 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)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> iasa20 mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
>>>
>>
>> --
>> PGP key change time for me.
>> New-ID 7B172BEA; old-ID 805F8DA2 expires Jan 24 2018.
>> NewWithOld sigs in keyservers.
>> Sorry if that mucks something up;-)
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> iasa20 mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20

-- 
PGP key change time for me.
New-ID 7B172BEA; old-ID 805F8DA2 expires Jan 24 2018.
NewWithOld sigs in keyservers.
Sorry if that mucks something up;-)