Re: On the difference between scenarios A and B in Carl's report

>At 7:57 PM +0200 9/6/04, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>>It seems to me that we are rapidly converging on one point of total IETF 
>>consensus:
>>
>>  Putting the IETF administrative function under ISOC requires a documented
>>  IETF-ISOC agreement (call it an MoU, a contract or something else - it IS
>>  a document, it IS an agreement and it DOES have two parties).
>>
>>Agreed?

Its easy to identify the first party to this MoU - its ISOC, but, in a 
formal sense,  who would be the second party? I'm not sure the division I 
work has a MoU with the CEO, nor do I think in terms of organizational 
sociology that the divisions of an entity are normally bound together with 
MoUs.

It appears to me that if we are heading down the contract / MoU path we 
have already implicitly set up the IETF as its own entity, and are now 
undertaking an outsourcing function to sub-contract activities to another 
entity.

I've also gained the impression that there is some hesitancy in taking such 
a step and assigning such role labels to the IETF and to ISOC and what we 
might be looking for here is something subtly different, which is a public 
undertaking on the part of ISOC regarding its commitment to the IETF role, 
and a public undertaking on the part of the IETF as to recognition of 
certain obligations on its part to ISOC.

    Geoff

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