On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 11:14 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 30/01/2017 16:49, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
...
> The IETF is an international organization whose members...
Not actually. The IETF is not an international organization
(I know, because I used to work for one) and it doesn't have members.
Legally, it's unclear that it's an organization at all, or in which
country it might be based.
I also suspect that for some days or weeks, getting a straight answer
about the impact on IETF98 attendees may be impossible, but I agree
that the IASA should ask.
I have worked at several international organizations, including CERN and I have also read quite a bit on law.
CERN is an international treaty organization established on the same bnasis as the ITU and other intergovernmental bodies. It is an 'International organization' the same way that WalMart is a retailer. Just as there are many retailers that are smaller than Walmart, there are many international organizations that are smaller than Walmart.
The World Croquet Federation is also an international organization. It is not a treaty organization. Nor does it have diplomatic status.
As for the IETF not being an organization, the only opinion on the matter that would matter is the courts. And if the question ever came up in court, I can guarantee that the first question to follow the statement 'we are not an organization' would be 'then what are you'. Remember that in common law, a contract that explicitly states it isn't a contract is still a binding contract if it meets the requirements.
The fiction that the IETF is not an organization would not last five minutes. Nor are its arrangements particularly complex. The only real impact of not incorporating IETF as a separate organization subordinate to ISOC is that ISOC is not insulated from any litigation against IETF.
The aspect of the current situation that I think people should focus on is that the primary design goal of the current arrangements was to prevent capture of the IETF process by what were considered to be hostile foreign powers. What appears to have been overlooked is the possibility of attack by hostile domestic powers.