On Sun, May 03, 2020 at 09:11:31PM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote: > On Mon, 4 May 2020, Toerless Eckert wrote: > > > IMHO, IETF (LLC) would financially be a lot safer off for the future if > > it would have only sources of revenue that where not depending on ISOC. > > Aka: split up the asset between ISOC and IETF LLC before its too late. > > What is "the asset" here? ..org > And why does IETF get half of that? I didn't say half, i was just suggesting to consider cutting financial ties between ISOC and IETF given their evolving differences in mission, i have no idea what a fair split would be. > Do you mean half a billion dollars for .org? Yes, to the best of my understanding, the proposed deal was 1.3 B, including 300 million deficit by the buyer, aka: net value 1 B by the cancelled deals evaluation. > They aren't getting it and even if they find a better way to get that, > it would be over 10+ years, so that is hardly "splitting up"? Was the Ethos deal over 10 years ? Yes, today, there is no "splitting up", given how the ISOC structure works. IETF still depends on getting checks from ISOCs. > Also, why would or should ISOC > give half of this asset to IETF? I didn't think the .org agreement > with ICANN, PIR and ISOC contained specific language about IETF funding, > but I could be wrong here. AFAIK, ISOC was once created as a care taker for IETF and the Internet, and i think that inheritig .org was meant to support that mission, but i raised exactly your question to Andrew in my prior email. Toerless > Paul
