So, as I see it, we can choose scenario C which includes
this bureaucratic work, as well as many other pieces of
bureaucratic work, or we can choose scenario O in which all
this work was done ten years ago.
Brian
Karl Auerbach wrote:
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, Gene Gaines wrote:
ISOC is non-profit, 501(c)(3) tax-exempt, incorporated in the
District of Columbia.
I suggest it would be a serious mistake for the IETF not to
obtain the same status.
There are many kinds of 501(c) exemptions. They all come with different
kinds of chains that impose limits on what the organization can do and
impose affirmative duties. Simply jumping into one category without
understanding the nature and form of those chains could lead to a kind
of organizational buyer's remorse.
Whether one considers the application process easy (or hard), fast (or
slow), or the IRS to be capricious (or not), it isn't something to be
undertaken lightly or without understanding the ramifications. The IRS
is one of the world's great bureaucracies; I know attorneys whose entire
practice is focused on just small parts of the US tax code and small
parts of that bureacracy.
The choice of Federal excemption also may have impact on the liability
(or rather on the limitation of liability) of unpaid Directors and
officers both on the basis of State laws that recognize certain
protections for certain 501 categories (and not for others) and also
under Federal laws that may provide some protection for volunteer
(unpaid) directors under some circumstances.
Many have, of course, navigated the maze and been happy with the
results. And some entities, after having experienced life as a 501(c)(3)
have discovered the limitations too binding and have changed their status.
The IETF ought to move forward with knowledge and understanding. It
ought not go forward blindly and with say 501(c)(3) or bust without
knowing fully what that means and implies.
The same goes for chosing the state of incorporation and the form under
that state's laws.
(There is, of course, the option of creating several different legally
cognizable entities, each shrink-wrapped with its own choice of
jurisdiction and form. But that could lead to a situation in which
there is not one IETF but several that drift in divergent directions.)
I'm not arguing against the 501(c)(3) status - I have neither an opinion
nor enough knowledge to make an informed choice. I'm merely noting that
the issue is complex and involves hard choices that ought to be made
with knowledge of the tradeoffs.
--karl--
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf