Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on where from here
2004-09-21 06:26:49
Hi Harald,
At 12:04 PM +0200 9/21/04, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
I've seen some argument that Scenario C, being more well-defined, is
actually less complex than Scenario O.
I share Brian's belief that Scenario C is more complex. The document
for Scenario C currently focuses on the mechanics of incorporation
(as it should, I think) so it doesn't delve into some of the topics
that Scenario O covers, such as what decisions will be made at each
level of the resulting corporation. Since we will maintain a
relationship with ISOC for funding, the work required for Scenario C
is really a superset of Scenario O.
For example, I think that there is a lot that needs to be clarified
regarding the duties of the BoT, Treasurer and IAD regarding fiscal
management of the IASF.
The IASF BoT is a corporate board with full "buck stops here"
fiduciary responsibility for the fiscal and legal management of the
IASF corporation. We haven't indicated that the IASF would have a
President/CEO or that the IAD would be an officer of the IASF. So, a
lot responsibility for direct fiscal management may fall on the
Treasurer (chosen by the IASF Board) and the Board itself. Unless
the IASF board authorizes the IAD to write checks on behalf of the
IASF (with only a single signature), the Treasurer or an authorized
BoT member will have to sign every check. The IASF BoT would need to
make employment policies, decide what types of benefits their
employee(s) should get, review and approve tax exempt filings, handle
payroll, etc.
So, at least one of the IASF BoT should probably be an accountant,
maybe we should include a lawyer, and some reasonable number of them
should have executive-level business skills including an
understanding of employment law, etc.
I think that the current Scenario C document underestimates the
complexity of selecting such a BoT and setting up the internal
structures and policies that would make a corporation operational.
Also, I was surprised to find that of the two timelines in the
writeups, the one for Scenario C was the shorter one. (That may
reflect the writers' degree of optimism, however!)
What do you consider to be the end of the Scenario O timeline?
I see a few dates for contracts in Scenario C, but most of those
dates seem to be for actions that the IETF leadership (by which I
assume you mean the IAB/IESG) will take in parallel with setting up
the IASF corporation. Is there a target date for incorporation of
the IASF or a timeline for the BoT selection?
The Scenario O timeline is (IMO, as the person who wrote it)
extremely aggressive -- it is a push goal, not a likely outcome. One
principle of the Scenario O timeline that makes the contract work
happen later than the dates in the Scenario C document is that the
initial contracts and major decisions about the structure of the IASA
effort should be worked out by the people who need to manage them
longer term, not by the already overloaded IETF technical leadership.
I think that the community will need to weigh these trade-offs (quick
start using existing technical leadership vs. waiting until we
appoint the people whose job this will be and let them do it). We
will have to make this trade-off in either Scenario, independent of
which one we choose. Our choice may depend on our assessment of how
urgent it is to get these contracts formalized.
Margaret
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
|
|