Re: Options for IETF administrative restructuring

Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> Aaron,
> 
> I hope you had noticed that I stated that IF we were to choose
> between A and B, that my preference would be for B. And indeed, 
> the below argument for C would then be (one of) my reason(s) for
> choosing B over A. 
> 
> I am not sure that C creates really so much more "distance" as what we 
> would create with B. Some of the extra safeguards that I see we would
> want with B would also create some "distance".
> 
> The benefit of C is (in my opinion) that it does not assume a default 
> (strong) relationship, but that it requires both organisations to 
> actively want to continue/renew the relationship every so many years. 
> And such checkpoints are nice and good points where the relationship
> can (and in my view will) be evaluated and if any friction has developed
> then at such checkpoints the friction can (timely and naturally) be 
> corrected.

That is true enough, but is it really enough to justify the overhead
costs and work of creating a new legal entity? Certainly the agreements
under scenario B (or even A) should include "explosive bolts" in case
the IETF becomes unsatisfied, and regular reviews are an execllent idea.

    Brian

> 
> Thanks, Bert
> 
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Aaron Falk [mailto:falk@ISI.EDU]
>>Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 02:53
>>To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
>>Cc: Scott Bradner; ietf@ietf.org
>>Subject: Re: Options for IETF administrative restructuring
>>
>>
>>
>>On Sep 3, 2004, at 3:06 PM, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If we were to go for option C, then in my personal view, it would have the
>>>serious benefit that we are ALWAYS (from day 1) responsible to make sure
>>>things work well. And we need to re-negotiate every so often if we want
>>>to keep the relationships that we have or if we want to change them.
>>>So in my view we would run far less risk to ever get in a similar situation
>>>as where we are today. Yep... initially it will cost us some more money and
>>>effort I suspect. But I think it is worth the price.
>>
>>Bert-
>>
>>It seems to me that this is an argument for option B as well s C.  My 
>>take from the history you laid out is that what was missing was a 
>>clearly articulated set of relationships which defined roles and 
>>responsibilities (and possibly instructions for disentangling if things 
>>went bad.  AFAICT, this could just as easily be put into option B 
>>without creating an (imo undesirable) increased distance between IETF 
>>and ISOC.
>>
>>--aaron
>>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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