RE: Scenario C or Scenario O ?

I can not say much more than that I fully agree with Scott and
others who question the actual gain from going with scenario C.
To me, O seems to be what we need today, and I can not see what
additional benefits C would give, rather the opposite, as Scott
has pointed out below.

/Lars-Erik

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of
> sob@harvard.edu
> Sent: den 23 september 2004 23:01
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Scenario C or Scenario O ? - I say let us go for C !
> 
> 
> 
> Bert justifies by:
> 
> > Besides my (wordy) response to you back on Sept 4th (or 3rd in US) 
> > as availabe at:
> >   http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg31057.html
> 
> which I read as saying
> 	"I distrust the IETF's ability to react if things get bad
> 	with the ISOC"
> 
> I do not see how the (dis)trust should be any different in the case
> of an independent corporation - 
> 
> in addition, if the admin director we (the selection process 
> whatever it
> is) select turns out to be a twit in disguise I think we are in far 
> deeper do-do with a sperate coporation where the one person is 
> basically the whole staff of the corporation than in the case 
> where other ISOC staff could fill in after we dump the twit (if
> we have the wherewithall to do that)
> 
> > The advantages I see are:
> > - if done properly, this allows the IETF support function
> >   to be carried out by a SHARPLY FOCUSED operation.
> >   We won't get sidetracked into things that are non-IETF.
> 
> I do not see any reason to think that an admin director whose
> only job is to support the IETF would be any less focused if
> he or she were working within the ISOC than if he or she were working
> in an independent corporation and, in fact, woould think they would 
> be more focused because he or she would not have to be worrying
> about running a corporation, an office and dealing with 
> accountants etc
> 
> > - if done properly, this allows for a very straight forward
> >   governance mechanism that is *directly* accountable to
> >   the IETF and where change control is clearly vested in that
> >   same community.  Again, the corporate solution is the
> >   lightweight and straightforward solution.
> 
> I do not see any reason to think an admin director working for
> the ISOC would be any less accountable to the IETF than one
> working in an independent corporation - in both cases it is a matter
> of defining the employment contract clearly
> 
> > To me it seems that starting a corporation is pretty 
> straight forward
> > if I understand the report from our consultant correctly.
> > It seems we can do this without a huge corporate bureaucracy.
> > In other words: we can make this lightweight (when operational).
> > I understand we need to do some extra steps to get it started.
> 
> I fully agree that filing the papers to start a corporation is easy
> I think we will have to agree to disagree on the level of effort
> required to actually get a coproration such as he one described
> in Scenario C up an running to a useful state and to the point where
> the admin director would actually have a chance to pay much attention 
> to the IETF duties. (ignoring, for this message, the tax issues etc)
> 
> Scott
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf