At 7:57 PM +0200 9/6/04, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
It seems to me that we are rapidly converging on one point of total IETF
consensus:
Putting the IETF administrative function under ISOC requires a documented
IETF-ISOC agreement (call it an MoU, a contract or something else - it IS
a document, it IS an agreement and it DOES have two parties).
Agreed?
Its easy to identify the first party to this MoU - its ISOC, but, in a
formal sense, who would be the second party? I'm not sure the division I
work has a MoU with the CEO, nor do I think in terms of organizational
sociology that the divisions of an entity are normally bound together with
MoUs.
It appears to me that if we are heading down the contract / MoU path we
have already implicitly set up the IETF as its own entity, and are now
undertaking an outsourcing function to sub-contract activities to another
entity.
I've also gained the impression that there is some hesitancy in taking such
a step and assigning such role labels to the IETF and to ISOC and what we
might be looking for here is something subtly different, which is a public
undertaking on the part of ISOC regarding its commitment to the IETF role,
and a public undertaking on the part of the IETF as to recognition of
certain obligations on its part to ISOC.
Geoff
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf