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(_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.
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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf