IETF Logo Mail Archive

IETF::ISOC (was Re: Sergeant at arms: please deal with mars.techno.cat@gmail.com)

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Tue, 22 October 2013 18:42 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D43E11E8223 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 11:42:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sN85Fb+sj-WO for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 11:42:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0456611E821F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 11:42:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.22.13] ([207.253.19.196]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r9MIgHv9027477 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 22 Oct 2013 11:42:21 -0700
Message-ID: <5266C703.2070704@dcrocker.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 14:42:11 -0400
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Subject: IETF::ISOC (was Re: Sergeant at arms: please deal with mars.techno.cat@gmail.com)
References: <5262FB95.8080500@gmail.com> <CAK41CSRKhD9W5WWm3xBJeb4U8Q6TbfG1EHnY_0BN7fC1QvO=iA@mail.gmail.com> <52657B0B.3080701@gmail.com> <m21u3d5zvo.wl%randy@psg.com> <5266B4A4.9020301@dcrocker.net> <m2ob6h42lk.wl%randy@psg.com>
In-Reply-To: <m2ob6h42lk.wl%randy@psg.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Tue, 22 Oct 2013 11:42:21 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 18:42:45 -0000

On 10/22/2013 1:50 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> as the ietf is legally f(isoc),
>> The IETF is not legally ISOC.
>
> you are correct.  legally, it is a function of isoc.  sorry about the
> notational shortening.


No, that's also wrong.  For example, the IETF is not a 'subsidiary' or 
'department' of ISOC.

Legally the IETF is an unincorporated, independent organization, or 
'voluntary association'[1].

ISOC is a separate corporation that provides administrative, legal and 
financial services to the IETF.

The IETF existed before ISOC.  If ISOC ceased to exist, the IETF would 
still exist, albeit with a number of administrative, legal and financial 
holes it would have to scramble to fill.

If the IETF ceased to exist, ISOC would still exist and still have a 
wide range of on-going activities, albeit a bit of a public relations 
task for filling a hole in its "story" and a financial scramble for 
finding a new recipient of a large chunk of cash.

None of this disparages either organization, but is meant to clarify the 
nature and independence of each, because folk regularly misunderstand 
the reality of the two organizations.


d/


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_association
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email