Hi, Still employed by, still not speaking for ISOC. On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 06:55:20PM -0400, Michael StJohns wrote: > > So you're basically saying that what was in 4071 didn't reflect the actual > legal landscape. E.g. the authorities granted to the IAOC to > manage/control/evaluate the IAD didn't really exist and there wasn't > actually a formal agreement with ISOC to allow for the setting of > performance goals or even hiring and firing? I don't know how there could have been a "formal agreement" with ISOC for this, since formally the IETF (and therefore the IAOC) was an activity of ISOC. It'd be like having a formal agreement between a department of a corporation and the corporation itself. Regardless, the basic idea was that ISOC was in fact responsive to the IAOC's requests to the extent permitted by law, but the practicalities of making the oversight work were much more convoluted than one would like and resulted in these quite bizarre situations in which the official version of what the employee received was not something to which the nominal oversight body actually had access once that official version was completed. If one thinks about this for even a second, it is obvious why: we all want our employment records to be handled as confidential information by our employers, nobody on the IAOC was under an NDA to ISOC, and only of them was an employee of ISOC. So there was no way to hand employment information for an employee of ISOC to IAOC members, except of course the ISOC CEO. I'm surprised any of this is news, since I think we went over it in some detail during the iasa2 discussions. > And I seem to remember in one of the message chains a comment that the 6635 > language that said "evaluate the RSE" got short shrift from ISOC as well? > So, from the ISOC's point of view, as the contract owner, at least part of > 6635 did not reflect the actual legal landscape - correct? I don't know about this. The relationship among parties in a contracting situation is quite different than the relationship among parties in an employment situation. In the case of the RSE, the contract (which is available for anyone to inspect at https://www.ietf.org/documents/232/RSE-2018-Independent-Contractor-24Oct17-Public.pdf) makes it pretty clear that the Internet Society was acting at the behest of the IAB and RSOC. > Now you have me curious - what were the dates that the RSE and IAD > contract(s) were assigned from the ISOC to the LLC and accepted by the > individual contractors? The IAD contract was never assigned from ISOC to the LLC, because the IAD was always an employee. But the IIAD contract was transferred along with the RFC Editor contract and everything else associated with this on 27 August 2018, according to https://www.ietf.org/documents/181/IETF-ISOC-TSSA-Redacted.pdf. The contractors didn't have a say in this assignment, since such agreements contained an assignment clause permitting ISOC to assign as it wanted. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
