RE: Scenario C or Scenario O ? - I say let us go for C !

sob@harvard.edu (scott bradner) Thu, 23 September 2004 21:13 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 RAA23593; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:13:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CAb18-0002FA-2N; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:20:42 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CAaks-00060c-PX; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:03:54 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CAaig-000588-7h for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:01:38 -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 RAA22686 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:01:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from newdev.eecs.harvard.edu ([140.247.60.212] helo=newdev.harvard.edu) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CAapW-0001yX-BJ for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:08:43 -0400
Received: by newdev.harvard.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id E80E7AB669; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:00:35 -0400 (EDT)
To: ietf@ietf.org
Message-Id: <20040923210035.E80E7AB669@newdev.harvard.edu>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:00:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: sob@harvard.edu (scott bradner)
X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: f4c2cf0bccc868e4cc88dace71fb3f44
Subject: RE: Scenario C or Scenario O ? - I say let us go for C !
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: 0.2 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: e8a67952aa972b528dd04570d58ad8fe

Bert justifies by:

> Besides my (wordy) response to you back on Sept 4th (or 3rd in US) 
> as availabe at:
>   http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg31057.html

which I read as saying
	"I distrust the IETF's ability to react if things get bad
	with the ISOC"

I do not see how the (dis)trust should be any different in the case
of an independent corporation - 

in addition, if the admin director we (the selection process whatever it
is) select turns out to be a twit in disguise I think we are in far 
deeper do-do with a sperate coporation where the one person is 
basically the whole staff of the corporation than in the case 
where other ISOC staff could fill in after we dump the twit (if
we have the wherewithall to do that)

> The advantages I see are:
> - if done properly, this allows the IETF support function
>   to be carried out by a SHARPLY FOCUSED operation.
>   We won't get sidetracked into things that are non-IETF.

I do not see any reason to think that an admin director whose
only job is to support the IETF would be any less focused if
he or she were working within the ISOC than if he or she were working
in an independent corporation and, in fact, woould think they would 
be more focused because he or she would not have to be worrying
about running a corporation, an office and dealing with accountants etc

> - if done properly, this allows for a very straight forward
>   governance mechanism that is *directly* accountable to
>   the IETF and where change control is clearly vested in that
>   same community.  Again, the corporate solution is the
>   lightweight and straightforward solution.

I do not see any reason to think an admin director working for
the ISOC would be any less accountable to the IETF than one
working in an independent corporation - in both cases it is a matter
of defining the employment contract clearly

> To me it seems that starting a corporation is pretty straight forward
> if I understand the report from our consultant correctly.
> It seems we can do this without a huge corporate bureaucracy.
> In other words: we can make this lightweight (when operational).
> I understand we need to do some extra steps to get it started.

I fully agree that filing the papers to start a corporation is easy
I think we will have to agree to disagree on the level of effort
required to actually get a coproration such as he one described
in Scenario C up an running to a useful state and to the point where
the admin director would actually have a chance to pay much attention 
to the IETF duties. (ignoring, for this message, the tax issues etc)

Scott

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