ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2004-09-02 03:40:14


--On torsdag, september 02, 2004 12:01:35 +0200 Brian E Carpenter <brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)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....


                            Harald


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf