Hi Harald,
At 12:04 PM +0200 9/21/04, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
I've seen some argument that Scenario C, being more well-defined, is actually less complex than Scenario O.
I share Brian's belief that Scenario C is more complex. The document for Scenario C currently focuses on the mechanics of incorporation (as it should, I think) so it doesn't delve into some of the topics that Scenario O covers, such as what decisions will be made at each level of the resulting corporation. Since we will maintain a relationship with ISOC for funding, the work required for Scenario C is really a superset of Scenario O.
For example, I think that there is a lot that needs to be clarified regarding the duties of the BoT, Treasurer and IAD regarding fiscal management of the IASF.
The IASF BoT is a corporate board with full "buck stops here" fiduciary responsibility for the fiscal and legal management of the IASF corporation. We haven't indicated that the IASF would have a President/CEO or that the IAD would be an officer of the IASF. So, a lot responsibility for direct fiscal management may fall on the Treasurer (chosen by the IASF Board) and the Board itself. Unless the IASF board authorizes the IAD to write checks on behalf of the IASF (with only a single signature), the Treasurer or an authorized BoT member will have to sign every check. The IASF BoT would need to make employment policies, decide what types of benefits their employee(s) should get, review and approve tax exempt filings, handle payroll, etc.
So, at least one of the IASF BoT should probably be an accountant, maybe we should include a lawyer, and some reasonable number of them should have executive-level business skills including an understanding of employment law, etc.
I think that the current Scenario C document underestimates the complexity of selecting such a BoT and setting up the internal structures and policies that would make a corporation operational.
Also, I was surprised to find that of the two timelines in the writeups, the one for Scenario C was the shorter one. (That may reflect the writers' degree of optimism, however!)
What do you consider to be the end of the Scenario O timeline?
I see a few dates for contracts in Scenario C, but most of those dates seem to be for actions that the IETF leadership (by which I assume you mean the IAB/IESG) will take in parallel with setting up the IASF corporation. Is there a target date for incorporation of the IASF or a timeline for the BoT selection?
The Scenario O timeline is (IMO, as the person who wrote it) extremely aggressive -- it is a push goal, not a likely outcome. One principle of the Scenario O timeline that makes the contract work happen later than the dates in the Scenario C document is that the initial contracts and major decisions about the structure of the IASA effort should be worked out by the people who need to manage them longer term, not by the already overloaded IETF technical leadership.
I think that the community will need to weigh these trade-offs (quick start using existing technical leadership vs. waiting until we appoint the people whose job this will be and let them do it). We will have to make this trade-off in either Scenario, independent of which one we choose. Our choice may depend on our assessment of how urgent it is to get these contracts formalized.
Margaret
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf