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

Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com> Thu, 02 September 2004 11:27 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA23335; Thu, 2 Sep 2004 07:27:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C2pnJ-00025h-PQ; Thu, 02 Sep 2004 07:30:24 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C2pan-0006ar-CY; Thu, 02 Sep 2004 07:17:25 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C2pW6-00044r-2b for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Sep 2004 07:12:34 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA22421 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Sep 2004 07:12:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mtagate2.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.151]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C2pYS-0000qr-Ir for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Sep 2004 07:15:02 -0400
Received: from d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.49]) by mtagate2.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i82BBwFW152000; Thu, 2 Sep 2004 11:11:58 GMT
Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id i82BBvpg112916; Thu, 2 Sep 2004 13:11:57 +0200
Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-145-225-17.de.ibm.com [9.145.225.17]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA60988; Thu, 2 Sep 2004 13:11:57 +0200
Message-ID: <4136FFFB.4000300@zurich.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 13:11:55 +0200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
Organization: IBM
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113
X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Christian de Larrinaga <cdel@firsthand.net>
References: <OLEPILDGDKGAPONGCBEOCEKOCHAA.cdel@firsthand.net>
In-Reply-To: <OLEPILDGDKGAPONGCBEOCEKOCHAA.cdel@firsthand.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: cab78e1e39c4b328567edb48482b6a69
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: What to incorporate (Re: Options for IETF administrative restructuring)
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0ddefe323dd869ab027dbfff7eff0465
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Christian de Larrinaga wrote:
> 
>>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.

Correct, and I wrote carelessly.

>>
>>If people want that possibility described, please speak up - Carl has the
>>pen ready....
>>
> 
> 
> Yes that would be helpful.

Well, I don't agree. I think it would defocus the discussion (which
is about putting the IETF's administration onto a business-like
basis). IMHO the only case in which we should discuss the wider
option is if the newtrk WG proposes changes in the standards process
that would make such a thing necessary.

    Brian

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