RE: What to incorporate (Re: Options for IETF administrative restructuring)

> Harald Tveit Alvestrand  Sent: 02 September 2004 11:16
> --On torsdag, september 02, 2004 12:01:35 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
> <brc@zurich.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > Christian also implies the converse question: would scenarios C & D
> > reduce a hypothetical existing conflict of interest for the ISOC
> > trusteees? Again, I don't see why. Firstly, I don't think there is
> > an existing conflict of interest. Secondly, changing the IETF from
> > an unincorporated association to an incorporated entity really
> > cannot affect the ISOC trustees' fiduciary duty to ISOC, so any
> > hypothetical conflict would not be changed.
>
> one note, since this has been a repeated source of much confusion and
> miscommunication....
>
> scenarios C and D envision incorporating the *support function* for the
> IETF. The IETF would remain an undefined entity under these scenarios.
>
> I've had another suggestion that the IETF (the real technical process
> entity) should become a formally recognizable entity of some sort
> (possibly
> an unincorporated organization). But that's distinct from the idea of
> incorporating the support function, and is NOT described in the current
> document.
>
> If people want that possibility described, please speak up - Carl has the
> pen ready....
>

Yes that would be helpful.

Christian

Christian de Larrinaga
tel:+44-844-484-9197
m:+44-7989-386778

------------------------------------------------------------------
Deploying Internet services?
You need to participate in the UK IPv6 Deployment Conference
Manchester September 24th 2004
www.uk.ipv6tf.org
alongside RIPE  49, 21st to 24th Sept 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------

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