> Harald Tveit Alvestrand Sent: 02 September 2004 11:16 > --On torsdag, september 02, 2004 12:01:35 +0200 Brian E Carpenter > <brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Christian also implies the converse question: would scenarios C & D > > reduce a hypothetical existing conflict of interest for the ISOC > > trusteees? Again, I don't see why. Firstly, I don't think there is > > an existing conflict of interest. Secondly, changing the IETF from > > an unincorporated association to an incorporated entity really > > cannot affect the ISOC trustees' fiduciary duty to ISOC, so any > > hypothetical conflict would not be changed. > > one note, since this has been a repeated source of much confusion and > miscommunication.... > > scenarios C and D envision incorporating the *support function* for the > IETF. The IETF would remain an undefined entity under these scenarios. > > I've had another suggestion that the IETF (the real technical process > entity) should become a formally recognizable entity of some sort > (possibly > an unincorporated organization). But that's distinct from the idea of > incorporating the support function, and is NOT described in the current > document. > > If people want that possibility described, please speak up - Carl has the > pen ready.... > Yes that would be helpful. Christian Christian de Larrinaga tel:+44-844-484-9197 m:+44-7989-386778 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Deploying Internet services? You need to participate in the UK IPv6 Deployment Conference Manchester September 24th 2004 www.uk.ipv6tf.org alongside RIPE 49, 21st to 24th Sept 2004 ------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf