--On 21. september 2004 08:32 -0700 Tony Hain <alh-ietf(_at_)tndh(_dot_)net>
wrote:
1 - The IETF exists, and it is the IETF community.
Even though we have carefully avoided defining its boundaries, I believe
that we all believe that the IETF exists.
Well at the functional level I agree, but at the legal/political level it
is clear that the IETF doesn't exist. Historically this has been
intentional, but it creates the side effect in these discussions that
'The IETF' is not in any position to enter into a recognized business
relationship or contract. The entire discussion about incorporating the
IETF vs. an entity to manage the administration functions is wrapped
tightly around this reality.
I would claim that at the political level it definitely exists, but agree
at the legal level (although there are people who claim that by virtue of
consistent behaviour over many years, the IETF is an unincorporated
association that just hasn't filed any papers).
Well the document blames the external relationships for the ambiguity,
when in fact it is the explicit lack of formality in the IETF definition
that is the root of those problems. In particular 3.1.3 is not
technically possible as written because there is no entity for the
supporting organization to enter into a contract with. To be clear, I am
not arguing for incorporating the IETF because I think there is
substantial value in the ambiguity that MUST NOT be lost. I am simply
pointing out that the language being used in the discussion is biased
around the false assumption in (1) above, and should be tempered
appropriately.
I believe both the consultant report and the scenarios documents went
fairly clearly into the ways in which an organization with no legal
existence can still excert a fair amount of control (as I believe it
should). So I think this is a solvable problem.
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf