Subject: re: Scenario C or Scenario O ? - I say let us go for C !

From: [email-masked] (scott bradner)
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 09:55:18 -0400 (EDT)

Bert said:
> From what I have seen/read sofar, my preference is to go for Scenario C. 
> Yes, Scenario O seems somewhat simpler. 
> Yes, Scenario O seems acceptable today.

just to be clear it is my opinion that
Scenario O is significantly simpler
and that Scenario C intruduces significant risks to the future of the
IETF for no supportble reasons

I have seen no convincing justification from anyone to support an
adoption of Scenario C 

Scott

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

---

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 22:31:46 +0200

> > Yes, Scenario O seems acceptable today.
Scott answered
> I have seen no convincing justification from anyone to support an

Besides my (wordy) response to you back on Sept 4th (or 3rd in US) 
as availabe at:
   http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg31057.html

Let me offer this summary:

To me it seems that starting a corporation is pretty straight forward
if I understand the report from our consultant correctly.
It seems we can do this without a huge corporate bureaucracy.
In other words: we can make this lightweight (when operational).
I understand we need to do some extra steps to get it started.

The advantages I see are:

- if done properly, this allows the IETF support function
  to be carried out by a SHARPLY FOCUSED operation.
  We won't get sidetracked into things that are non-IETF.

- if done properly, this allows for a very straight forward
  governance mechanism that is *directly* accountable to
  the IETF and where change control is clearly vested in that
  same community.  Again, the corporate solution is the
  lightweight and straightforward solution.

"Ability to focus on IETF support" is the big thing and tight 
change control is another advantage.I 

Bert

---

From: [email-masked] (scott bradner)
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:00:35 -0400 (EDT)

>   http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg31057.html

which I read as saying
	"I distrust the IETF's ability to react if things get bad
	with the ISOC"

I do not see how the (dis)trust should be any different in the case
of an independent corporation - 

in addition, if the admin director we (the selection process whatever it
is) select turns out to be a twit in disguise I think we are in far 
deeper do-do with a sperate coporation where the one person is 
basically the whole staff of the corporation than in the case 
where other ISOC staff could fill in after we dump the twit (if
we have the wherewithall to do that)

>   We won't get sidetracked into things that are non-IETF.

I do not see any reason to think that an admin director whose
only job is to support the IETF would be any less focused if
he or she were working within the ISOC than if he or she were working
in an independent corporation and, in fact, woould think they would 
be more focused because he or she would not have to be worrying
about running a corporation, an office and dealing with accountants etc

>   lightweight and straightforward solution.

I do not see any reason to think an admin director working for
the ISOC would be any less accountable to the IETF than one
working in an independent corporation - in both cases it is a matter
of defining the employment contract clearly

> I understand we need to do some extra steps to get it started.

I fully agree that filing the papers to start a corporation is easy
I think we will have to agree to disagree on the level of effort
required to actually get a coproration such as he one described
in Scenario C up an running to a useful state and to the point where
the admin director would actually have a chance to pay much attention 
to the IETF duties. (ignoring, for this message, the tax issues etc)

Scott

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:04:39 -0400

Actually, as far as I can tell the accountability is about the same in both 
cases, and in neither case as "direct" as one would philosophically like 
(but probably as direct as one can get in practice.)  Similarly, the 
"change control" appears to be equally in the IETF hands.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:02:28 +0200

I can not say much more than that I fully agree with Scott and
others who question the actual gain from going with scenario C.
To me, O seems to be what we need today, and I can not see what
additional benefits C would give, rather the opposite, as Scott
has pointed out below.

/Lars-Erik

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> [email-masked]
> Sent: den 23 september 2004 23:01
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Scenario C or Scenario O ? - I say let us go for C !
> 
> 
> 
> Bert justifies by:
>