A couple other comments:
Fred Baker wrote:
[snip]ISOC proposes to replace this:
Within the constraints outlined above, all other details of how to structure this activity within ISOC (whether as a cost center, a department, or a formal subsidiary) shall be determined by ISOC in consultation with the IAOC.
with this:
Within the constraints outlined above, all other details of how to structure this activity within ISOC (whether as a cost center, a division, or a wholly controlled affiliate) shall be determined by ISOC in consultation with the IAOC.
Again, I am not an expert here, but my reading of "formal subsidiary" and "wholly controlled affiliate" is not the same. The issue of control is a very sensitive one here, and I strongly suggest not using the term "control" here unless there is an extraordinarily strong reason to do so. This activity is controlled by the IETF in partnership with ISOC, through the offices of the IAOC. If there are other terms available that do not muddy those waters, I would strongly prefer that they are used.
Maybe we can agree to call ISOC a non-profit corporation, and the IETF its "affiliate"? Legally, so I'm told (IANAL), the relationship doesn't change - ISOC is viewed as being legally "in control" and therefore legally "whom to sue", and IETF is the child in the relationship. But we can sugar-coat that if it makes the fact more palatable. That would make the paragraph read
Within the constraints outlined above, all other details of how to structure
this activity (whether as a cost center, a division, or an affiliate) shall
be determined by ISOC in consultation with the IAOC.
This works for me. I wanted to comment because I believe I'm responsible for some original piece of this text, and the intent was simply to elaborate that the possibilities for implementation were varied and not part of what was being specified here. So, if one of the example forms was a bogon, it's important to replace it!
Also,
To try to minimize the change from the original edits, may I suggest this:
Should the IETF standards process at some future date come to include other technical activities, the IAOC is responsible for developing plans to provide administrative support for them.
Is that better?
That probably makes more sense. BTW, ISOC and the IASA are logical
places to look for such. But in this context IASA is the hands and feet
and IAOC is the brain. So putting the responsibility with the IAOC is
probably rational.
FWIW, I like this proposal. I don't believe the intention was ever to create blank cheques, but the IASA as a whole is meant to be driven by the IETF's needs, and we shouldn't lose sight of that even as we give the IAOC the necessary tools to push back on things it can't do. I think this strikes the reasonable balance.
Leslie.
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf