Subject: Explosive bolts [Re: Options for IETF administrativerestructuring]

From: [email-masked] (scott bradner)
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 11:34:06 -0400 (EDT)

> In his scenario, not only the Administrative Czar would need explosive
> bolts, but also the RFC Editor and Secretariat, etc. 

that depends on the contracts with those suppliers - if the contract
is signed by the IETF chair or the admin czar for the IETF (rather than
for the ISOC) I would not expect that any supplier-specific bolts would
be required

Scott

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 09:23:59 +0200

> for the ISOC) I would not expect that any supplier-specific bolts would

And it would be pretty simple for ISOC (our incorporated entity designed
for this purpose in 1992) to give formal signature rights to the IETF
chair if we really needed that. I think a Board resolution would suffice.

    Brian

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 12:34:18 -0500

On 9/8/04 at 9:23 AM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

>scott bradner wrote:
>>>In his scenario, not only the Administrative Czar would need 
>>>explosive bolts, but also the RFC Editor and Secretariat, etc.
>>
>>that depends on the contracts with those suppliers - if the 
>>contract is signed by the IETF chair or the admin czar for the IETF 
>>(rather than for the ISOC)...

This is the most utterly confusing thing I've heard on this topic and 
I really hope Scott can clarify:

1. As far as I can tell, there is no scenario in which the IETF chair 
is signing anything. First and foremost, the IETF chair can't make a 
contract without exposing him/herself to *personal* liability because 
the IETF chair (as such) is not an employee of any corporation which 
empowers such a thing. If I were IETF chair, I wouldn't sign any 
contract which came within 10 miles of me.

2. The admin czar (at least in scenarios A&B) would be an employee of 
ISOC. I don't see how that person could possibly sign a contract on 
behalf of the IETF: Like the IETF chair, there's no legal 
relationship there that I understand. The admin czar could sign a 
contract on behalf of ISOC, or under scenario C&D sign on behalf of 
the "IETF Foundation" (as Carl's report calls it).

So I have no idea what you could mean by "sign for the IETF". And 
this is the core of my concern.

>>I would not expect that any supplier-specific bolts would be required

If all contracts (including the RFC Editor and the Secretariat) went 
through the admin entity (which would be under the ISOC in A&B), I 
agree that no separate bolts are required.

>And it would be pretty simple for ISOC (our incorporated entity 
>designed for this purpose in 1992) to give formal signature rights 
>to the IETF chair if we really needed that. I think a Board 
>resolution would suffice.

But that would entail giving the IETF chair signature rights *to sign 
for ISOC*. That would be sufficient for these purposes, but is 
completely undesirable in that we were trying to get IAB/IESG members 
*out* of the business of administrative tasks.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

---

From: [email-masked] (scott bradner)
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 13:58:46 -0400 (EDT)

> is signing anything.

the IETF chair currently does that sort of thing (see for example the
ICANN PSO MoU)

also see Brian's note

Scott

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 13:20:34 -0500

On 9/8/04 at 1:58 PM -0400, scott bradner wrote:

>>1. As far as I can tell, there is no scenario in which the IETF 
>>chair is signing anything.
>
>the IETF chair currently does that sort of thing (see for example 
>the ICANN PSO MoU)
>
>also see Brian's note

The IETF chair is not on the hook for any money with that kind of MoU.

I again ask for you to please explain how you think this setup will 
work other than to have the ISOC be the contracting party.

pr