I'm a bit puzzled by the suggestion that this wasn't discussed; see e.g.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iasa20/cPK6ei47a-VG3vERO0JqpT144uE
and some follow-ups to that. I personally raised the issue of choosing
a different jurisdiction several times in 2017-18.
Andrew is right, of course, that the "disregarded entity" model required
US jurisdiction, but at the time that model was chosen, we'd already
had the discussion about jurisdiction.
(I wasn't too happy with the conclusion, but that is a different matter.)
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 02-Jul-22 05:26, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
[ObDisclaimer: still just talking for myself, but still employed.]
On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 08:39:49AM -0700, S Moonesamy wrote:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-102-iasa2/ There isn't any
occurrence of a discussion about jurisdiction.
The point I guess I was trying to make but apparently obscured is
that, once IASA2 chose option 3, there was _no discussion to be had_
of jurisdiction. Only if the IETF wanted to give up any association
with the Internet Society at all could it put itself in another
jurisdiction, and it seemed to me that the option of complete severing
of ties was pretty quickly set aside. My apologies that that did not
come across clearly enough for you.
Best regards,
A
