Re: Supervision under previous admin relationships (was Re: RFC Series Editor (RSE) Statement of Work)

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Still employed by, still not speaking for ISOC.

On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 06:55:20PM -0400, Michael StJohns wrote:
> 
> So you're basically saying that what was in 4071 didn't reflect the actual
> legal landscape.  E.g. the authorities granted to the IAOC to
> manage/control/evaluate the IAD didn't really exist and there wasn't
> actually a formal agreement with ISOC to allow for the setting of
> performance goals or even hiring and firing?

I don't know how there could have been a "formal agreement" with ISOC
for this, since formally the IETF (and therefore the IAOC) was an
activity of ISOC.  It'd be like having a formal agreement between a
department of a corporation and the corporation itself.

Regardless, the basic idea was that ISOC was in fact responsive to the
IAOC's requests to the extent permitted by law, but the practicalities
of making the oversight work were much more convoluted than one would
like and resulted in these quite bizarre situations in which the
official version of what the employee received was not something to
which the nominal oversight body actually had access once that
official version was completed.  If one thinks about this for even a
second, it is obvious why: we all want our employment records to be
handled as confidential information by our employers, nobody on the
IAOC was under an NDA to ISOC, and only of them was an employee of
ISOC.  So there was no way to hand employment information for an
employee of ISOC to IAOC members, except of course the ISOC CEO.

I'm surprised any of this is news, since I think we went over it in
some detail during the iasa2 discussions.

> And I seem to remember in one of the message chains a comment that the 6635
> language that said "evaluate the RSE" got short shrift from ISOC as well? 
> So, from the ISOC's point of view, as the contract owner, at least part of
> 6635 did not reflect the actual legal landscape - correct?

I don't know about this.  The relationship among parties in a
contracting situation is quite different than the relationship among
parties in an employment situation.  In the case of the RSE, the
contract (which is available for anyone to inspect at
https://www.ietf.org/documents/232/RSE-2018-Independent-Contractor-24Oct17-Public.pdf)
makes it pretty clear that the Internet Society was acting at the
behest of the IAB and RSOC.
 
> Now you have me curious - what were the dates that the RSE and IAD
> contract(s) were assigned from the ISOC to the LLC and accepted by the
> individual contractors?

The IAD contract was never assigned from ISOC to the LLC, because the
IAD was always an employee.  But the IIAD contract was transferred
along with the RFC Editor contract and everything else associated with
this on 27 August 2018, according to
https://www.ietf.org/documents/181/IETF-ISOC-TSSA-Redacted.pdf.

The contractors didn't have a say in this assignment, since such
agreements contained an assignment clause permitting ISOC to assign as
it wanted.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]