Hi Dave,
Sitting on both sides of this particular fence, I actually _don't_ think that we have a strategic disagreement about who would control (using that term in it's normal English sense) this activity. The document is very clear that the IETF makes the rules about how the IASA will work (this BCP, for example), the IETF chooses 3/4 of the people who will run the IASA (the IAOC), the IAOC selects and hires the IAD, the IAOC and IAD to determine the policies, goals, budget, priorities and relationships of the IASA, _AND_ the IETF can move this function to a different corporate home if the IETF ever decides that is a good idea. The ISOC Board will have to approve some of those things (as indicated in this document and other IETF process documents), but the IETF is in the driver's seat.
Now, personally, I don't have a strong feeling about whether the word "controlled" or "managed" is used in the abstract. I wrote the original text that is under discussion, and I don't personally believe that either word runs counter to what I said in the first paragraph of this message, nor do I believe that either word can fully capture what I said in that paragraph. It is the job of the entire document to capture the relationship, and I'm not at all concerned about people who just read the abstract to decide how a complex function is supposed to work.
But, to a corporate lawyer, the word "control" doesn't seem to mean all of the stuff that I listed in the first paragraph... All of that stuff falls under the term "management". "Control" of an organization equates to "ownership" and/or "fiduciary responsibility". If I'm understanding this correctly (which I may not be), it isn't possible for the Board to give up "control" (in a legal sense) of any ISOC-housed activity. We can allow the activity to be completely managed by the IETF, but we are still responsible for the activity, and we have a fiduciary responsibility to understand the activity well-enough to know that it is being run legally and in a way that is consistent with ISOC's legal and tax status, etc.
So, with my ISOC Board hat on (a hat which none of the ISOC Board members are legally allowed to take off), I am not inclined to ignore legal advice from ISOC's corporate counsel. Maybe the IETF Chair could ask the IETF lawyer (Jorge) whether changing the word from "controlled" to "managed" has any bad legal implications for the IETF?
Margaret
At 12:33 AM -0800 2/11/05, Dave Crocker wrote:
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 09:56:22 -0800, Ted Hardie wrote:Ý ISOC has proposed this:
Ý ÝÝThis document describes the structure of the IETF Administrative Ý ÝÝSupport Activity (IASA) as an IETF-managed activity housed within the Ý ÝÝInternet Society (ISOC). Ý to replace this: Ý ÝÝThis document describes the structure of the IETF Administrative Ý ÝÝSupport Activity (IASA) as an IETF-controlled activity housed within Ý ÝÝthe Internet Society (ISOC) legal umbrella.
Ý Speaking personally, I strongly prefer "controlled" to "managed", Ý and I believe that the formulations we've used up to now intended Ý the "under ISOC's wing" view that "IETF-controlled" implies. ÝChanging Ý it weakens a formulation that is core to the community consensus Ý that we've built over time, and I don't think it is a good idea.
"IETF-managed" means that it is managed by the IETF? Yet isn't that exactly what it is NOT. It is an IETF activity, managed by an ISOC employee.
Or maybe the real is really is about control?
One thing that is likely is that a negotiation that involves this degree of disparity of language also involves strategic disparities between the two groups doing the negotiating.
d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker Ýa t ... WE'VE MOVED to: Ýwww.bbiw.net
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf