I can not say much more than that I fully agree with Scott and others who question the actual gain from going with scenario C. To me, O seems to be what we need today, and I can not see what additional benefits C would give, rather the opposite, as Scott has pointed out below. /Lars-Erik > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of > sob@xxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: den 23 september 2004 23:01 > To: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: Scenario C or Scenario O ? - I say let us go for C ! > > > > Bert justifies by: > > > Besides my (wordy) response to you back on Sept 4th (or 3rd in US) > > as availabe at: > > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg31057.html > > which I read as saying > "I distrust the IETF's ability to react if things get bad > with the ISOC" > > I do not see how the (dis)trust should be any different in the case > of an independent corporation - > > in addition, if the admin director we (the selection process > whatever it > is) select turns out to be a twit in disguise I think we are in far > deeper do-do with a sperate coporation where the one person is > basically the whole staff of the corporation than in the case > where other ISOC staff could fill in after we dump the twit (if > we have the wherewithall to do that) > > > The advantages I see are: > > - if done properly, this allows the IETF support function > > to be carried out by a SHARPLY FOCUSED operation. > > We won't get sidetracked into things that are non-IETF. > > I do not see any reason to think that an admin director whose > only job is to support the IETF would be any less focused if > he or she were working within the ISOC than if he or she were working > in an independent corporation and, in fact, woould think they would > be more focused because he or she would not have to be worrying > about running a corporation, an office and dealing with > accountants etc > > > - if done properly, this allows for a very straight forward > > governance mechanism that is *directly* accountable to > > the IETF and where change control is clearly vested in that > > same community. Again, the corporate solution is the > > lightweight and straightforward solution. > > I do not see any reason to think an admin director working for > the ISOC would be any less accountable to the IETF than one > working in an independent corporation - in both cases it is a matter > of defining the employment contract clearly > > > To me it seems that starting a corporation is pretty > straight forward > > if I understand the report from our consultant correctly. > > It seems we can do this without a huge corporate bureaucracy. > > In other words: we can make this lightweight (when operational). > > I understand we need to do some extra steps to get it started. > > I fully agree that filing the papers to start a corporation is easy > I think we will have to agree to disagree on the level of effort > required to actually get a coproration such as he one described > in Scenario C up an running to a useful state and to the point where > the admin director would actually have a chance to pay much attention > to the IETF duties. (ignoring, for this message, the tax issues etc) > > Scott > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf