Subject: Re: I understand that there is an ISO MOU with the IETF - I want to see it...

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 15:17:24 -0400

--On Friday, 13 October, 2006 13:37 -0400 Dean Anderson
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, John C Klensin wrote:
>> And please see my earlier comments about your "rights" in
>> these issues generally and to make this type of demand, even
>> if the agreement and documents did exist.
> 
> I would like to see your comments as well. I must have missed
> them.
> 
> I note that, by law, Members of a non-profit have the same
> rights as shareholders of a for-profit, and therefore have a
> right to inspect documents.

You are not a member of the IETF.
Todd is not a member of the IETF.
I am not a member of the IETF.
Jorge isn't a member of the IETF either.

The IETF has no members.
Next?
    john

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

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:08:42 -0700

> Jorge isn't a member of the IETF either.

Not only are you right, but per se, the IETF is not a non-profit.

Further most people who participate in non-profits do not fit the legal 
definition of "member".  In the world of non-profits, that term has very 
specific meaning and carries very specific obligations.  Hence most non-profits 
avoid it by having "subscribers" or the like who are not actually "members".

At base, I cannot figure out why anyone keeps feeding such trollish topics, I 
thought it might at least be amusing to comment on the term member.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: "Eastlake III Donald-LDE008" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:40:15 -0400

Of course the IETF is a non-profit entity. For-profit entities are
entities whose purpose is for the operations of the entity itself to
produce profits which accrue to its owners/proprietors/partners/...
Non-profit entities are entities with any other purposes.

Note that these definitions have nothing to do with whether the
operations of the entity are actually producing a surplus or a loss.

Note that the definition of a non-profit has nothing to do with whether
its operations are intended to increase in the income of its
members/owners/... only with whether or not it is the purpose of the
operations of the entity itself to produce a profit that accrues to its
owners. For example, associations of businesses and associations of
workers can be non-profit even if their purpose is to increase the
income of their members.

You can generally categorize non-government organization by
for-profit/non-profit, incorporated/unincorporated, and
1-person/multi-person. Some of the combinations of these have particular
names that are typically used for them.

For-profit/unincorporated/1-person: "sole proprietorship"

For-profit/unincorporated/multi-person: "partnership"

Non-profit/unincorporated/multi-person: "unincorporated association"

*/incorporated/1-person: "corporate sole", sometimes just called a
"corporation", could be prefixed with "for profit" or "non-profit" for
specificity

*/incorporated/multi-person: "corporation", could be prefixed with "for
profit" or "non-profit" for specificity

The only remaining combination is a single person, unincorporated, doing
something non-profit which doesn't really have any special name.

I have always maintained that the IETF is an unincorporated association.
Exactly who a court would decide was a member of the IETF for what
purpose is not completely clear.

Donald

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 4:09 PM
To: John C Klensin
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: I understand that there is an ISO MOU with the IETF - I
want to see it...

Further most people who participate in non-profits do not fit the legal
definition of "member".  In the world of non-profits, that term has very
specific meaning and carries very specific obligations.  Hence most
non-profits avoid it by having "subscribers" or the like who are not
actually "members".

At base, I cannot figure out why anyone keeps feeding such trollish
topics, I thought it might at least be amusing to comment on the term
member.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:57:44 -0700

Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 wrote:
> Of course the IETF is a non-profit entity.

Don, I think you lost the thread of this thread.

The operative phrase that triggered my comment was "...by law, Members of a 
non-profit...".

By law.  So this was about the legal construct of a "member" of a non-profit, 
not just a matter of operational style.

That puts things into the 501(c)(3, 6, whatever) category.  And my comments 
meant in that context.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 21:54:28 -0400

On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 01:08:42PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
> At base, I cannot figure out why anyone keeps feeding such trollish topics, 
> I thought it might at least be amusing to comment on the term member.

Note that at this point Dean and Todd have been banned from the IETF
list.  While this means that their postings will not show up on the
mailing list, if they send e-mails to a number of people and cc the
IETF list, and that person makes the mistake of getting baited to
respond, their response will go out to the IETF list.  

I would suggest, when replying to Todd or Dean, to remove the IETF
list from the cc line, unless you are really sure that it would be of
interest to all members of the IETF list.

Regards,

						- Ted

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 12:15:32 +0200

On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 01:08:42PM -0700,
 Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 34 lines which said:

> Further most people who participate in non-profits do not fit the
> legal definition of "member".  In the world of non-profits, that
> term has very specific meaning and carries very specific
> obligations.  Hence most non-profits avoid it by having
> "subscribers" or the like who are not actually "members".

[And, in another message, a reference to what appears to be USA tax
law and which probably puzzled many IETFers:]

> That puts things into the 501(c)(3, 6, whatever) category.  And my
> comments meant in that context.

I have no doubt that your analysis is correct, as long as you limit
yourself to one country.

Giving the vast variety of countries in which IETF
members-who-are-not-members work, and the variety of legal systems, I
urge everyone to avoid basing any reasoning on a specific legal
system. Unlike ICANN, which is incorporated in the USA for a purpose,
IETF has no nationality.

My knowledge of the US legal system is mostly limited to what you can
learn by watching TV series so, please, do not use it as a reference
that anyone should share. 

Or I will talk about the IETF by using examples from the french 1901
law about non-profit organisations :-)

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
IetfFrom [email-masked] Mon Oct 16 06:28:06 2006
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 03:16:10 -0700
To: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
From: Lakshminath Dondeti <[email-masked]>
Cc: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], [email-masked],
	[email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea)

At 01:46 AM 10/16/2006, Leif Johansson wrote:
>Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
> > At 01:42 AM 10/7/2006, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> >>> <snip>
> >> Many universities require their students to buy their own laptops,
> >> but prohibit certain types of activity from those laptops (like
> >> spamming, DDOS-attacks and the like). They would love to have the
> >> ability to run some kind of NEA procedure to ensure that laptops are
> >> reasonably virus-free and free from known vulnerabilities, and are
> >> important enough in their students' lives that they can probably
> >> enforce it without a complaint about "violation of privacy".
> >>
> >> Just pointing out that there's one use case with user-managed
> >> endpoints where NEA is not obviously a bad idea.
> >
> > My email ventures into a bit of non-IETF territory, but we are
> > discussing use cases, and so I guess it's on topic.  Universities
> > should be the last places to try antics like NEA.  Whereas an
> > operational network would be a priority to them, it is also important
> > that they allow students to experiment with new applications.  If we
> > are believing that general purpose computing will be taken away from
> > college students, we are indeed talking about a different world.
> >
> > In any event, the bottomline is NEA as a solution to "network
> > protection" is a leaky bucket at best.
> >
> > NEA at best *may* raise the bar in attacking a "closed" network where
> > endpoints are owned and tightly controlled by the organization that
> > owns the network.
> >
>Lets not forget that when (not if) NEA/NAP/NAC is deployed the IDSen
>people have deployed today to
>solve the lying-client-problem by scanning for common/current
>vulnerabilities as part of the network admission
>process will have to interface with PDPs part of a NEA [email-masked]

Could you rephrase please?  I am afraid I don't understand what you 
are saying.

Oh, and lying endpoint problem cannot be solved by scanning for 
common vulnerabilities!  In fact, the two have no relation whatsoever.

Lakshminath

>     Cheers Leif

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 12:15:32 +0200

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 14:00:17 +0200

I'd like to observe that the IASA was created so that the IETF as
a whole wouldn't need to bother about these administrative matters.

    Brian

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 14:40:11 +0200

On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 02:00:17PM +0200,
 Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 9 lines which said:

> I'd like to observe that the IASA was created so that the IETF as a
> whole wouldn't need to bother about these administrative matters.

I am not sure I understand. If you mean that the IASA's aim is to
deliver engineers from day-to-day administrative stuff such as
printing badges for the meetings, OK. 

But if you mean that IETF "non-members" should stay away from
important policy-related things like the dispute resolution process or
the very nature of the IETF (incorporated or not, in a country or
another, etc), then, I would certainly disagree.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 14:48:59 +0200

> important policy-related things like the dispute resolution process or

Certainly not; that's part of the standards process, which is
explicitly excluded from IASA scope.

> another, etc), then, I would certainly disagree.

Well, hold on: the community took a clear decision about that,
which is recorded in RFC 4071. My point is only that IASA is charged
to implement that decision, which surely includes making sure that
we remain tax-exempt, appropriately insured, etc.

    Brian