This is precisely the sort of meandering back-and-forth that demonstrates the need for a new model for plenary. I reiterate my offer to those who share an interesting in this to contact me and we can establish something of a design team.
Eliot
On 6/30/22 23:33, John Levine wrote:
I for one, hoped the opportunity to *deliberately* incorporate in a non-US location would be taken, for several I* and other NFP bodies. That it never happened continues to make me wonder what it is, about US legal incorporation I don't understand, that makes US people prefer it over all other incorporation. I suspect the only answer is "its the one they know"I really wish that people would stop recycling this tired red herring. There are two reasons that ISOC and the IETF don't move out of the US: A. It would cost a fortune, like tens of millions of dollars in lost revenue due changes in tax status of PIR which provides the bulk of ISOC's income. B. It wouldn't solve any real problems.I really wish people would stop promoting denial about the problems caused by having the IETF under US jurisdiction, especially when the US is increasingly (a) unstable and (b) in danger of becoming an authoritarian state.
Even admitting the cost to ISOC of moving outside the US, IETF has changed funding models before, and it can do so again. If IETF hopes to continue its mission, it needs to creatively explore alternative ways of operating and funding itself from time to time.
Keith
Attachment:
OpenPGP_0x87B66B46D9D27A33.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
