Bernard Aboba wrote:
Jon Peterson said:
"I think there is a concern in the community that the IETF needs some way
to ensure that it is not "locked in" to any solution we adopt at this
stage."
If this is the problem that we are attempting to address, then the
document needs to articulate the principles to be followed in order to
ensure this, rather than trying to micro-manage aspects of the IASA
operation.
For example:
a. If the goal is to ensure transparency and accountability, then it might
be useful to provide separate financial statements for the IASA,
including income statements and balance sheets.
b. If the goal is to ensure separability, then a separation agreement is
required, detailing what assets will belong to the IASA upon separation.
Note that such a "prenup" agreement is distinct from principles of IASA
operation, such as recommended levels of working capital, and usually
requires agreement from the other party.
c. If the goal is to ensure that IASA will retain rights to intellectual
property created using its funds, then that should be stated explicitly.
d. If the goal is to retain maximum freedom of operation, then it might
be advisable to keep the budget in balance over the long term.
Yes, I've always assumed there will be an MOU between IETF and ISOC,
both to recognize the BCP when we have it, and to make explicit some
of these boundary conditions.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf