Scenario O promises a distinctive IETF administrative entity within ISOC's
legal framework.
The problems establishing a directly IETF controlled entity emerge from the
informality and porous boundaries of the IETF. It is perfectly possible to
resolve these but it will take a lot of time and effor
On Thursday, September 23, 2004 22:17:14 -0700 Tony Hain
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well the I-D Editor is a fundamental cornerstone in our document process,
and therefore deserves to be explicit. Personally I don't have a problem
with moving the function to better align with the RFC Editor's off
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
...
> >2.3 Budget -
> >> The specific timeline will be established each year, before the
> >> second IETF meeting.
> >
> >Wouldn't it be cleaner to just specify that the budget process will be
> >completed in the first half of the calendar year? That would be mor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ted Hardie) wrote on 21.09.04 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> creating the appropriate corporate realities. A major disagreement
> that we seem to have is whether any additional work that may be required to
> create the appropriate corporate realities is worth the options it
> buys
> > But I bet not for tragic events like terrorist strikes/threats or war related
> > issues. So setting up some reserves of our own seems better to me.
>
> those options are not exclusive
>
> it's a very good idea to have reserves, its also a good idea to
> explore event cancellation insurance
> But I bet not for tragic events like terrorist strikes/threats or war related
> issues. So setting up some reserves of our own seems better to me.
those options are not exclusive
it's a very good idea to have reserves, its also a good idea to
explore event cancellation insurance
Scott
__
--On Thursday, 23 September, 2004 11:09 -0400 Margaret Wasserman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
> Given that the schedule has the interim IAOC formed in
> November and the IAD hired in January, I think that this may
> be reasonable. The interim IAOC would be hard put to organize
> themselves a
--On Thursday, 23 September, 2004 11:09 -0400 Margaret Wasserman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
> Given that the schedule has the interim IAOC formed in
> November and the IAD hired in January, I think that this may
> be reasonable. The interim IAOC would be hard put to organize
> themselves a
--On 23. september 2004 10:35 -0400 "Joel M. Halpern"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2) The schedule calls for seating the IAOC on January 15, and hiring the
IAD by the end of January. Given that the search committee can not be
appointed until the board is seated, it seems that item is either an
im
Hi Joel,
At 10:35 AM -0400 9/23/04, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Two minor comments:
1) The references to "the IASF bank account" should probably be
relaxed to "IASF fund accounts" or "IASF accounts". As written, it
presumes that there is exactly one bank account, and that separation
of funds is by b
> At 1:08 AM -0700 9/23/04, Tony Hain wrote:
> >2.1.4 - 6 months for the reserve is a funny number for an organization where
> >the nominal income period is 4 months. Wouldn't it make more sense to spell
> >out a reserve that covered a disaster case of a canceled meeting after the
> >contracts had
age-
> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 16:35
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Scenario O Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on where from
> here
>
>
> I think that this (scenario 0) is the right approach to
> follow.
Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 16:35
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Scenario O Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on where from
> here
>
>
> I think that this (scenario 0) is the right approach to
> follow. It appears
>
Hi Tony,
Great feedback. Thanks! A few comments in-line:
At 1:08 AM -0700 9/23/04, Tony Hain wrote:
2.1.4 - 6 months for the reserve is a funny number for an organization where
the nominal income period is 4 months. Wouldn't it make more sense to spell
out a reserve that covered a disaster case o
I think that this (scenario 0) is the right approach to follow. It appears
to me to be the lowest risk path consistent with the needs that have been
identified.
Two minor comments:
1) The references to "the IASF bank account" should probably be relaxed to
"IASF fund accounts" or "IASF accounts
Some comments:
2.1.4 - 6 months for the reserve is a funny number for an organization where
the nominal income period is 4 months. Wouldn't it make more sense to spell
out a reserve that covered a disaster case of a canceled meeting after the
contracts had been signed? Something like:
Also, in nor
So, as I see it, we can choose scenario C which includes
this bureaucratic work, as well as many other pieces of
bureaucratic work, or we can choose scenario O in which all
this work was done ten years ago.
Brian
Karl Auerbach wrote:
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, Gene Gaines wrote:
ISOC is non-profit, 50
Karl,
Good thoughts. I agree with all.
I suppose the reason for my long writing was to say that 501(3)(?)
status should not be feared, the process is predictable, and I
think you will find the IRS actually will assist in the process.
In any event, requires a good non-profit / tax lawyer to evalu
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, Gene Gaines wrote:
ISOC is non-profit, 501(c)(3) tax-exempt, incorporated in the
District of Columbia.
I suggest it would be a serious mistake for the IETF not to
obtain the same status.
There are many kinds of 501(c) exemptions. They all come with different
kinds of chains t
Karl,
2 cents.
Assuming IETF is going to set up a corporation and it is to be
created in the United States, it appears to me there are strong
reasons for incorporating as a non-profit, and further to obtain
tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(3) organization.
It appears to me that IETF qualifies for t
I'd like to express general support for scenario O.
I probably will not have time to read the document in sufficient
detail to agree with every point, but this looks like a good
direction.
--Sam
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ie
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
I think this and a number of other points made here gloss over a key point of
which some of the participants may not be aware.
Under US law, there is a significant difference between "not-for-profit" and
"charitable nonprofit"
It might be useful
On Wednesday, September 22, 2004 05:59:02 +0200 Harald Tveit Alvestrand
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Being a bit facetious here, the only way to be sure the sun will rise in
the morning is to wait for it to show up. If we get an organizational
charter that a tax attorney is willing to assure us "is
--On Wednesday, 22 September, 2004 05:59 +0200 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>> re: 3/ Of course, there can be no assurance that a
>> corporation will be tax exempt unless 1/ it already is, or 2/
>> the IRS rules that it is. Scenario O covers the 1st case
>> since the I
--On Wednesday, 22 September, 2004 05:59 +0200 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>> re: 3/ Of course, there can be no assurance that a
>> corporation will be tax exempt unless 1/ it already is, or 2/
>> the IRS rules that it is. Scenario O covers the 1st case
>> since the I
Leslie and Harald somewhat challenged me in private to review
Scenario O more deeply, to indicate the bits of it that may need
more work - since otherwise we might miss showstoppers.
So I have sone so, below, but with the proviso that this
is the scenario I prefer - so my comments should be taken i
--On 21. september 2004 23:50 -0400 John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
(time to change the subject line enough to do some
differentiation)
good principle..
as I said on another thread, I think we should take competent tax advisor's
advise on whether or not we can achieve this, and how
Scott,
some meta-thoughts.
--On 21. september 2004 20:33 -0400 scott bradner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Scenario C document says that there are 3 prerequisites required
before the option of a corporation can be "considered viable at all"
1/ IETF consensus on the plan
2/ ISOC
(time to change the subject line enough to do some
differentiation)
--On Tuesday, 21 September, 2004 20:33 -0400 scott bradner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> re: 3/ Of course, there can be no assurance that a corporation
> will be tax exempt unless 1/ it already is, or 2/ the IRS
> rules that it is
Karl Auerbach reminded me in private mail (forwarded with permission)
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004, scott bradner wrote:
> The Scenario C document says that there are 3 prerequisites required
> before the option of a corporation can be "considered viable at all"
...
> 3/ assurance that a corporatio
High order bit: To me Scenario C contains significant complexity and
risk when compared to Scenario O while providing, in my opinion, no
useful advantages.
some observations:
Both Scenarios depend on the development of a job description for an
admin director of some kind - as has been mentioned o
FWIW, I too read the scenario C as more complex, certainly with respect to
establishing a new organization. That really takes a lot of time and
flushing out of details.
I see scenario O as doable, though I agree with John that even there the
timeline is optimistic.
Erik
[Disclaimer: I am on th
At 9:07 AM -0400 9/21/04, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Hi Harald,
At 12:04 PM +0200 9/21/04, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
I've seen some argument that Scenario C, being more well-defined,
is actually less complex than Scenario O.
I share Brian's belief that Scenario C is more complex. The
documen
Hi Harald,
At 12:04 PM +0200 9/21/04, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
I've seen some argument that Scenario C, being more well-defined, is
actually less complex than Scenario O.
I share Brian's belief that Scenario C is more complex. The document
for Scenario C currently focuses on the mechanics
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 01:19:15PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>
> >Brian,
> >
> >I've seen some argument that Scenario C, being more well-defined, is
> >actually less complex than Scenario O.
>
> I would really dispute that. There are layers of comple
Harald,
FWIW, with one qualification, I tend to agree with Brian. While
Scenario C seems to contain more detail and definition, a great
deal of it appears to be handwaving that tends to conceal more
complexity and more risk. I suspect that both schedules are too
optimistic (which one is "more" t
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Brian,
I've seen some argument that Scenario C, being more well-defined, is
actually less complex than Scenario O.
I would really dispute that. There are layers of complexity in either
case, and I think the scenario O analysis, because it's based on a
real, existing
Brian,
I've seen some argument that Scenario C, being more well-defined, is
actually less complex than Scenario O.
Also, I was surprised to find that of the two timelines in the writeups,
the one for Scenario C was the shorter one. (That may reflect the writers'
degree of optimism, however!)
S
Thanks, to you and the various authors, for this effort
and for reducing the choice to a binary one.
To me, this clarifies that it's a one-horse race. I just can't
see any argument for the extra complexity, overhead cost, and
risk of Scenario C.
Obviously we would need to hack at the details of Sce
Following up on my note from this morning...
Leslie Daigle wrote:
Accordingly, some people volunteered to write down some text
for each, drawing on and extending Carl's documents. The
outcome of that writing exercise will be circulated here
later today -- i.e., a note describing a possible implem
Folks,
10 days ago, some members of the IAB and IESG started to review
the IETF discussion on the adminrest subject, attempting to
determine what recommendations to draw, or how to elicit more
discussion to lead to being able to provide some recommendations
for moving forward. It seemed like the 2
41 matches
Mail list logo
