I can not say much more than that I fully agree with Scott and
others who question the actual gain from going with scenario C.
To me, O seems to be what we need today, and I can not see what
additional benefits C would give, rather the opposite, as Scott
has pointed out below.
/Lars-Erik
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]On Behalf Of
sob(_at_)harvard(_dot_)edu
Sent: den 23 september 2004 23:01
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: Scenario C or Scenario O ? - I say let us go for C !
Bert justifies by:
Besides my (wordy) response to you back on Sept 4th (or 3rd in US)
as availabe at:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg31057.html
which I read as saying
"I distrust the IETF's ability to react if things get bad
with the ISOC"
I do not see how the (dis)trust should be any different in the case
of an independent corporation -
in addition, if the admin director we (the selection process
whatever it
is) select turns out to be a twit in disguise I think we are in far
deeper do-do with a sperate coporation where the one person is
basically the whole staff of the corporation than in the case
where other ISOC staff could fill in after we dump the twit (if
we have the wherewithall to do that)
The advantages I see are:
- if done properly, this allows the IETF support function
to be carried out by a SHARPLY FOCUSED operation.
We won't get sidetracked into things that are non-IETF.
I do not see any reason to think that an admin director whose
only job is to support the IETF would be any less focused if
he or she were working within the ISOC than if he or she were working
in an independent corporation and, in fact, woould think they would
be more focused because he or she would not have to be worrying
about running a corporation, an office and dealing with
accountants etc
- if done properly, this allows for a very straight forward
governance mechanism that is *directly* accountable to
the IETF and where change control is clearly vested in that
same community. Again, the corporate solution is the
lightweight and straightforward solution.
I do not see any reason to think an admin director working for
the ISOC would be any less accountable to the IETF than one
working in an independent corporation - in both cases it is a matter
of defining the employment contract clearly
To me it seems that starting a corporation is pretty
straight forward
if I understand the report from our consultant correctly.
It seems we can do this without a huge corporate bureaucracy.
In other words: we can make this lightweight (when operational).
I understand we need to do some extra steps to get it started.
I fully agree that filing the papers to start a corporation is easy
I think we will have to agree to disagree on the level of effort
required to actually get a coproration such as he one described
in Scenario C up an running to a useful state and to the point where
the admin director would actually have a chance to pay much attention
to the IETF duties. (ignoring, for this message, the tax issues etc)
Scott
_______________________________________________
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