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

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