►
From YouTube: IETF100-IASA20-20171114-0930
Description
IASA20 meeting session at IETF100
2017/11/14 0930
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/100/proceedings/
B
Welcome!
Welcome
to
this.
Our
third
incarnation,
I
believe
so
far.
The
eye
has
a
judo
non
work,
non-working
performing
Bach.
This
is
better
I.
Also
execu
I
can't
even
hear
it
like
this.
Oh
I
see
because
I
can't
tell
it's
like
no
different
for
me.
Okay,
so
welcome
everyone
to
this
third
incarnation
of
I
as
a
to
dato,
always
heartened
to
see
how
many
people
are
so
interested
in
the
operations
of
the
ITF
thanks.
Everyone
for
coming
I
know,
there's
all
things
that
we
would
rather
be
doing,
but
we
gotta
get
this
done.
B
You
know
there.
There
is
absolutely
no
reason
why
this
should
inspire
any
technical
thinking
of
anyone
here,
but
should
a
technical
idea
come
to
you
that
you
feel
like
you
need
to
like
run
up
to
the
microphone
and
share
note?
Well,
it
is,
as
in
every
other
context,
covered
by
our
intellectual
property
agreements
with
which
you
are
all
undoubtedly
familiar.
This
is
our
plan.
For
this
morning,
we're
gonna
hear
the
readout
from
the
design
team.
B
It's
going
to
be
tag
team
by
Brian
and
yari
and
I
believe
Leslie
is
sneaking
in
at
the
end
of
it
as
well
in
a
previously
unannounced
cameo
appearance,
following
which
let's
talk
about
this
and
see
if
we
can
actually
hash
this
out
this
time,
I
think
I
think
we're
getting
there
I
think
we're
making
a
lot
of
progress
and
provided
it
does
seem
like
we've
got
a
direction
maybe
coming
out
of
this.
Some
sure
Alissa
will
have
some
thoughts
for
us
at
the
end
of
this,
but
at
these
times
we
got
plenty
of
time.
B
We
got
all
the
time
we
need
to
discuss
this
I,
don't
know
if
we're
gonna
use
it
all,
but
but
we
got
it
all
right.
Do
we
have
anybody
here
who
feels
like
this?
Isn't
such
an
important?
This
could
be
in
a
store
at
the
moment
for
the
ITF
wouldn't
love
to
be
able
to
record
for
posterity.
What
has
happened?
Can
we
get
a
note-taker
for
this
out
there
in
the
audience?
I
know
I
know
a
lot
of
people
come
to
this.
B
Yes,
there
is,
we
know
declining
volunteerism,
but
we
are
not
exemplifying
that
here
today.
It
is
not
this
day
this
day
we
fight
no
seriously,
please
some
somebody's
got
a
recording.
Okay
looks
like
Mt,
Thank,
You,
Mt.
I
know
you've
done
this
before
to
your
your
Pete
offender.
So
so
we
appreciate
that
anybody
describing
this
out
to
the
Jabbar,
the
people
in
Jabbar
land.
Unfortunately,
you
have
some
remote
participants,
this
time,
Thank
You
reg,
very
much
appreciate
it
perfect.
So,
but
this
this
plan
look
okay.
B
C
B
D
C
Please
all
right
so
I'm
gonna,
try
and
make
the
the
first
two
bullets
go
real
quick
I'd
really
rather
focus
more
on
the
discussions
and
and
get
to
some
of
the
open
mic
parts
of
this
as
quickly
as
possible.
So
next
slide.
Please
excited
that
all
right.
So
for
those
of
you
who
haven't
been
around
for
the
last
couple
of
meetings,
this
is
our
just
a
real
quick
overview
of
what's
been
going
on,
and
why
we're
here?
C
Essentially
you
know
the
we're
gonna
look
we're
looking
at
the
changes
in
the
administrative
tasks
over
the
last
10
years
and
and
what
what
has
come
about
from
that
has
been
a
number
of
changes,
not
only
from
the
from
the
tasks
that
are
being
carried
out,
but
also
the
community's
expectations
for
the
functions
that
are
being
performed
on
the
administrative
side
and
then
to
make
things
you
know
as
fun
as
possible.
We're
also
dealing
with
the
fact
that
the
world
around
us
is
changing.
C
So
in
the
draft.
What
we've
done
is
is
we've
tried
to
flesh
out
as
much
of
the
problems
as
we
can
to
try
and
make
sure
everybody's
on
the
same
page,
with
with
with
respect
to
the
administrative
tasks
and
the
administrative
arrangements
that
we
have
today,
and
essentially,
what
we've
come
across
is.
Is
that
there's
there's
a
couple
of
families
of
of
problems
that
come
up?
C
The
first
one
is,
is
lack
of
clarity
and
underneath
that
we
actually
come
up
with
with
you
know,
four
different
areas
where
people
have
identified
where
clarity
has
actually
been
the
cause
of
some
problems.
First,
one
being
responsibility,
you
know
what
is
an
IETF
responsibility?
What's
a
nice
TOC
responsibility
is
not
always
clear
at
all
times.
C
The
second
one
is
is
actually
a
in
my
mind,
a
relatively
big
one,
because
it's
it's
kind
of
an
offshoot
of
the
fact
that
the
IETF
in
and
of
itself
is
not
an
entity.
So
the
question
is,
is
who
actually
speaks
for
the
IETF
and
in
different
situation?
Different
people
have
that
role,
and
the
question
is:
is
which
roles
make
the
most
sense
for
that
representation?
C
C
Essentially,
there's
a
perception
that
you
know
within
the
IOC.
There
are
not
necessarily
as
as
transparent
functions
and
operations
as
there
could
be,
and
the
fourth
one
is
in
the
funding
and
operating
model.
There
seem
to
be
some
mismatches
that
are
there,
causing
us
problems
next
slide,
please
John.
C
So,
within
the
document,
what
we
did
is
we
went
through
and
we
actually
spelled
out
some
of
the
goals
of
what
we
wanted
to
accomplish,
and
you
can
think
of
these.
As
you
know,
what
are
you
know?
Design
requirements
are
going
to
be
the
first
set.
Clearly.
The
first
thing
we
want
to
do
is
we
want
to
protect
the
ietf
culture.
We
want
to
make
sure
that
people
who
are
providing
financial
support
are
kept
independent
of
people
who
are
making
technical
contributions.
C
The
second
goal
is
really
to
improve
the
technical
environment.
We
essentially
want
to
make
sure
that
we
undertake
changes
that
are
going
to
better
enable
the
technical
contributors
to
keep
making
those
technical
contributions
and
not
force
them
into
becoming
something
that
they're.
Not
the
third
goal
is
is
to
is
to
clear
up
the
definition
of
of
the
IETF
and
I
sock
relationship.
C
The
next
one
is
is
re-envisioning
the
funding
model,
and
essentially,
what
we're
trying
to
do
here
is
make
sure
that,
as
we
define
the
new
administrative
functions,
we're
actually
providing
the
support
needed
in
order
to
address
changes
in
the
industry
that
might
have
the
funding
that
comes
in
the
ietf
tied
back
into
the
the
clarity
issue.
We
really
want
to
make
sure
that
that
one
of
the
key
things
that
we
get
out
of
this
work
is
making
sure
that
the
relationship
between
the
IETF
and
I
sock
from
a
money
perspective
is
is
clearly
defined.
C
C
And
that
ties
really
ties
back
into
making
sure
that
we
define
what
that
support
staff
is
supposed
to
do
and
what
responsibilities
they
have
been
doing
those
jobs.
It's
not
necessarily,
you
know
completely
clear
in
many
instances
where
that
you
know
where
responsibilities
lie
and
people
are
picking
them
up
ad
hoc
in
order
to
make
sure
that
the
things
get
done.
C
The
next
one
is
is
actually
trying
to
redefine
or
clearly
define
the
role
of
the
IETF
community
as
it
relates
to
some
of
these
administrative
activities
so
as
we're
actually
changing
or
redefining
the
responsibilities
for
that
administrative
staff.
The
role
of
the
community
will
change
and
we
need
to
make
sure
that
that
that
better
defines
so
that
people
have
a
clearer
view
of
what
kind
of
of
input
and
impact
they
can
have
on
those
those
tasks
as
they
go
forward.
C
You
know
clearly
tie
back
in
to
the
problem
statement.
We
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
defining
improved
transparency
requirements
so
that
you
know
people
are
happy
with
the
level
of
information
being
provided,
then
timeliness
of
that
information
being
provided
and
then
finally,
we
need
to
make
sure
that
we
have
a
transition
plan
so
that
we
know
how
we
get
from
today's
I
asked
the
structure
to
whatever
new
structure
we
do.
We
define
coming
out
of
this
activity
next
shot.
C
And
then,
for
me,
this
is
this:
is
the
last
slide
for
me,
so
some
of
the
things
that
went
into
the
the
work
within
within
the
document
was
really
trying
to
figure
out
what
those
transition
options.
Look
like
what
the
document
does,
that
it
kind
of
defines.
You
know
three
representing
the
structures
you
know,
one
being
essentially
a
an
improved
version
of
the
current
is
a
function.
C
The
second
one
is
actually
formulating
a
subsidiary
within
I
sock
and
in
this
particular
case,
that
administrative
structure
lives
with
a
nice
talk,
but
it
keeps
a
separate
set
of
resources.
Bank
accounts,
bylaws
charter
staff
boards
from
I
sock,
and
so
it
actually
operates
nearly
independently,
but
it's
still
housed
within
I
sock
and
then
the
third
option
is
actually
an
independent
organization
where
that
administrative
structure
again
has
its
own
accounts
and
bylaws
and
charters
etc.
C
E
F
Good
morning,
everybody
so
I
would
just
wanted
to
briefly
go
through
some
of
the
main
points
from
the
discussion
that
we've
had
so
far
just
to
sort
of
bring
everyone
up
to
date
on
what
the
discussion
has
been.
I
did
send
out
an
email
this
morning
that
had
a
detailed
list
of
the
comments
that
we've
received.
F
Sort
of
categorized
in
different
categories
do
take
a
look
at
that
I'm,
not
planning
to
go
over
everything
in
that
email
today
or
here
on
the
during
the
meeting,
but
that
can
be
a
source
for
you
to
look
at
in
the
coming
days
and
that
email
had
most
of
stuff
in
it.
Not
obviously,
not
not
the
discussion
that
we've
had
this
morning
and
the
email
list,
and
also
I
forgot
a
few
pieces
of
feedback
I
think
Lucy's
feedback
did
not
make
it
there,
for
instance,
opposes
for
that.
F
F
So
so
the
feedback
that
we
have
is
basically
around
options.
First
of
all,
I
quit
direction.
Should
we
choose
there's
some
discussion,
obviously
about
the
Isak
relationship.
That
also
relates
to
the
option
issue.
There
was
some
discussion
of
staff
issues
around
some
practical
elements
of
that,
as
well
as
more
generally,
do
we
want
that
and
and
so
forth,
and
what
what
size
and
and
so
on
a
few
comments
around
IETF
trust.
F
We
had
a
have
a
proposal
for
an
advisory
council
in
the
document
as
well.
Some
people
had
had
asked
about
that.
What
the
extent
that
is
needed,
or
would
that
just
be
an
extra
layer,
we
had
some
discussion
of
volunteers.
So
one
of
the
problems
that
was
mentioned
that
we
have
lack
of
volunteers
and
not
really
lack
of
volunteers,
but
maybe
lack
of
volunteer
cycles,
and
you
know
one
question
was
whether
we
could
actually
sort
of
formally
comment
volunteers
or
have
the
volunteers
committed
some
tasks
in
a
more
formal
way
than
we
do
today.
F
We
had
some
good
discussion
about
the
comparisons
Brian,
for
instance,
send
us
good
feedback
on
that
had
missed
some
points
there,
so
the
next
version
will
will
link
the
comparisons
clear
and
and
more
fair
through
all
of
the
options,
and
we
had
also
some
missing
items
next
slide.
Please
so
I
just
planned
to
go
through
a
couple
of
items
here
to
highlight
not
not
the
details
that
somebody
raised
but
sort
of
bigger
threads
in
the
discussion.
F
So
so
one
sort
of
key
point
here,
I
guess,
is
that
we,
while
the
document,
does
bring
three
options
forward.
It's
important
to
understand
that
is
a-plus-plus
and
as
well
as
the
other
ones
are
actually
more.
You
know
there
are
food
options,
you
you
you
it's
more
of
a
spectrum.
We
need
to
discuss
in
detail
exactly
what
what
those
things
mean
and
you
can
sort
of
go
further
along
a
particular
direction
or
less
for
further
along.
F
We
have
to
decide
those
those
kinds
of
things
and
then
some
of
the
bigger
discussion
in
the
in
the
email
list
at
least
was
I
guess
between
two
different
viewpoints.
What
one
is
that
you
know
if
we
had-
and
this
is
basically
represented
by
the
design
theme-
that
it
would
be
worth
having
a
clear
organizational
boundary,
and
then
you
know
that
that
will
make
multiple
things
clear
in
the
organization
and
then
the
design
of
the
organization
is.
F
So
obviously,
bureaucracy
for
the
sake
of
bureaucracies
is
bad.
We
don't
want
that.
The
question
is:
can
we
do
it
in
a
smart
fashion?
Next
slide,
please,
and
then
the
the
options
obviously
affect
the
AIESEC
relationship.
There's
a
couple
other
items
worth
mentioning
here,
I
think
in
addition
to
that.
F
So
so
the
you
know.
One
point
forget
who
made
this
point,
but
as
long
as
the
idea
phase
rely
on
denies
look
for
funding,
they
will
have
a
degree
of
control.
You
know,
regardless
of
what
sort
of
formal
arrangements
are
and
how
independent
or
non
independent
we
are
and
from
our
organizational
perspective,
and
that
that's
true,
of
course-
and
we
should
not
forget
that
and
also
it
was
I,
think
there's
no
contention
about
that.
That
point,
and
also
was
men,
made
a
point
that
it's
important
in
a
close
relationship.
F
Do
we
have
a
fixed
budget
as
soon
as
we
have
a
different
organization
than
in
the
funding
model
which
is
today
is
more
of
a
I?
Would
classify
that's
on
a
need
basis,
kind
of
thing.
That's
that
change
because
of
the
organizational
structure
or
not,
and
also
an
important
but
sort
of
a
minor
thing.
But
but
you
know
it's
good
to
handle
all
this
loose
ends
what
to
do
in
the
few
possible
future
evolution.
F
So
in
the
document,
for
instance,
we
talked
about
you
know
what
happens
if
we
actually
decommission-
and
you
know
if
we
create
subsidiary,
for
instance,
with
decommission
that
someday,
how
that
happens
and
who
decides
and
so
forth.
So
there
were
some
opinions
around
how
that
gets
done
next
slide,
please
staff
and
contractors,
there's
a
bigger
role
for
staff
and
contractors,
I
think
in
the
what
what
we
our
vision,
envisioning
for
I,
guess
all
of
the
options.
F
So
you
know
whether
they're
employed
by
the
ITF
admin,
org
or
Isaac,
or
if
they're
contractors.
That
means
essentially
increased
number
of
people
working
for
the
IETF
and
there
were
some
biscuit
sort
of
details
of
this
were
discussed.
I'm.
Not
that's!
That's
that,
but
but
there
are
some
more
general
issues
like
you
know.
Is
this
a
good
thing,
a
bad
thing?
How
do
we
handle
that?
What
does
it
mean?
F
I
guess
some
growth
seems
unavoidable
merely
because
we
have
I
think
over
time,
seeing
growth
of
kinds
of
tasks
that
need
to
be
done
and
possibly
some
decline
of
volunteer
ability,
or
you
know
or
time.
Everybody
is
like
all
tied
up
in
their
own
businesses
and
they
can't
necessarily
contribute
significant
amounts
of
time
so
easily
and
also
we're
having
some
personal
changes
going
on
and
the
IETF
at
the
moment.
F
So
I
think
some
of
that
is
unavoidable.
We
can
discuss.
You
know
exactly
how
far
we
should
be
going
there,
but
then
there's
a
question
of
how
do
we
make
sure
that
that
you
know
this?
Whatever
organization
we
have
stays
in,
the
control
of
the
IETF
does
execute
the
things
the
IETF
community
actually
wants,
and
we
do
need
to
ensure
that
our
oversight
processes,
our
roles
are
clear
and
we
have
a
controllability
in
the
ITF
community
to
steer
whatever
we
have
next
slide.
F
F
F
The
other
thing
some
people
asked
about
the
difference
between
ITF
admin,
org
and
an
IETF,
and-
and
we
try
to
emphasize
this
in
the
document.
There
was
some
discussion
with
me
and
Steven
this
this
morning
also
about
this
this
matter,
so
so
the
design
team
wanted
to
be
very
clear
that
we
want
this
administrative
function
to
be
that
that's
the
idea,
admin
org
and
that
serves
the
IETF,
but
it's
not
the
idea.
F
So
so,
if
we
have
an
executive
director,
for
instance,
or
we
have
sort
of
formal
existence
for
the
ITF
admin
org,
that
does
not
mean
that
we
have
formal
exists
for
existence
for
the
IETF
or
that
the
execute
director
would
have
any
any
say
in
say
how
the
IFC
operates
or
how
working
groups
operates
or
or
effect
on
how
we
have
participants
in
the
in
the
IDF
and
I.
Think
that's
really
really
important
in
keeping
the
IDF
culture
next
slide.
F
F
F
Team
probably
needs
some
further
work
as
well,
but
it
would
be
really
good
if,
at
least
from
the
point
of
view
of
people
who
were
trying
to
write
these
documents,
if
we
were
able
to
get
some
feedback
from
you
all
like
where
you
know,
what's
what
direction
should
we
go
to,
and
so
we
could
investigate
that
direction
in
more
depth
and
certainly
if
you
actually
decide
to
go
for
a
particular
model-
and
that
involves
you
know
in
practical
work,
writing
documents
and
some
are
RFC
changes
contracting
lawyers
to
look
at.
You
know
how.
F
G
F
Do
and
then
able
to
have
have
the
details
easier,
I,
guess
what
remains
is
discussion.
We
did
have
Leslie
if
you
could
come
up
and
so
in
the
design
team.
We
have
had
some,
obviously
some
opinions
ourselves
about.
You
know
what's
reasonable,
what's
not
reasonable
and
maybe
you
can
say
a
few
words
about
that
and
since
you
are
the
one
in
the
fire
and
how
you
see
at
the
moment,
so
seem
appropriate
that
you
talk
about.
H
Thanks
yeah
actually
I
think
that
that's
part
of
the
perspective
that
I
bring,
although
I'll,
be
clear
that
I'm
speaking
as
an
individual
and
I'm
not
wearing
any
particular
hats.
I've
also
had
various
other
perspectives
over
the
years.
So
part
of
what
I've
tried
to
do
here
is
capture.
An
articulation
of
one
of
the
points
of
discussion
on
the
mailing
list
has
been
that
the
document
itself
does
not
describe
what
does
or
doesn't
work
about.
H
I
obviously
see
the
ietf
side
more
clearly
than
the
ice
oxide,
so
this
is
not
meant
if
I've
expressed
anything
incompletely.
That's
my
expression
problem.
This
is
not
meant
to
be
critical,
but
rather
just
to
illustrate
the
challenges
inherent
in
having
two
organizations
operating
together.
So
with
all
that
is
preamble,
so,
for
instance,
the
as
we
have
it
now,
I
sock
employees,
all
IETF
staff
are
one
staff
member
and
from
the
IHF
perspective,
we
recognize
that
the
ID
is
an
I
saw
comply,
but
from
the
ice
Hawk
perspective,
I
saw
is
an
order.
H
That's
fine!
That's
normal!
We've
coped
with
it
for
a
dozen
years,
but
then
we
can
look
at
things
like
personnel
management
and
review
the
IAD
works
with
and
for
the
IETF
and
the
IOC
is
per
BC
p101
responsible
for
hiring
firing
and
annual
reviews
and
so
on.
So
it
does
the
annual
performance
review
in
the
context
of
the
HR
framework
that
is
established
by
the
organization
of
which
the
IAD
is
an
employee.
H
From
the
ice
Hawk
perspective,
they
have
an
employee
for
which
they
don't
have
enough
involvement
in
the
work
to
be
able
to
do
the
review
anyway,
irrespective
of
what
BC
p101
says.
So
here's
another
sort
of
bit
of
friction
or
disconnect
between
trying
to
make
these
two
organisations
fly
as
one
when
it
comes
to
personnel
details.
For
instance,
we
ran
into
a
little
bit
of
a
we
bumped
up
against
this
wall
when
it
came
time
to
our
astonishment
to
find
a
successor,
IAD
and
in
order
to
properly
set
compensation
for
any
successor
IAD.
H
It
seems
rational
to
have
information
in
details
on
compensation
of
the
existing
IAD,
since
we
do,
after
all,
you
know,
approve
the
budget
and
all
that
good
stuff,
but
understand
from
the
ice
Hawk
perspective
as
a
matter
of
proper
maintenance
of
personnel
information,
you
can't
really
go
handing
all
that
detail
off
to
people
who
have
no
formal
nation
ship
with
your
organization,
so
you
know
another
bruise
from
that
particular
wall.
Next
slide,
please
for
contracts.
We
have
a
few
of
those.
H
You
were
enjoying
this
hotel
because
of
one
of
them,
for
instance,
so
the
IHF,
with
all
of
its
so
sort
of
contractors
and
whatnot
negotiates
a
terms
and
establishes
contracts
terms
aligned
with
its
needs,
expectations
and
relationships,
because
we
know
these
people
with
whom
we
are
contracting
in
some
cases,
and
because
we've
established
relationships
with
hotel
chains
and
whatnot,
and
I
sock
the
organization
is
the
signer
of
these
contracts,
because
it's
the
legal
entity
and
therefore
it
has
to
be
comfortable
with
the
legal
terms
in
the
contract,
because
it
is
ice,
walk
that
suffers
exposure
in
the
things
that
get
signed
and
finding
the
line
between
what
is
you
know
something
that
we
should
renegotiate
because
it's
exposure
for
I
sock
versus
it's
changing
the
terms
and
the
nature
of
the
relationship
that
the
ietf
expects
sometimes
is
a
little
bit
challenging.
H
I
hope
that's
clear
enough
in
concept.
I,
certainly
don't
want
to
try
to
go
into
any
particular
details,
but
I
mean
just
appreciate
that
this
is
again
natural,
different
requirements
from
the
two
different
organizations:
business
support
software
resources.
For
example.
The
ITF
would
like
to
select
its
own
software
to
support
its
work.
Earlier
this
year
we
were
discussing
the
use
of
Salesforce
for
some
of
the
sponsorship
work.
H
Ice
Hawk
has
its
own
rationalize
IT
arrangements
and
in
order
to
enter
into
an
agreement
with
Salesforce
well,
we
have
to
go
through
an
IT
review
and
does
this
really
fit
with
where
we
want
to
go
so
longer
discussion
again,
that's
just
a
reality
of
two
different
organizations.
The
IETF
has
an
ideology
about
best
practices:
open
source
eat
our
own
dog
food,
so
this
is
sort
of
a
flipped
perspective.
If
we
really
are
one
organization
and
I,
socks
should
be
aligned
with
our
ideology
and
also
open
source
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
H
But
from
the
standpoint
of
trying
to
make
an
that
order,
a
hundred
person
organization
do
business.
Why
the
heck?
Would
you
do
that?
I
mean
I?
Think
we
all
many
of
us
come
from
commercial
organizations
where
we
respect
open
source
etc,
but
maybe
we
aren't
using
open
source
software
to
run
our
businesses,
for
instance,
and
then
finally-
and
this
was
touched
on
earlier
for
representation,
the
ITF
makes
its
own
choices
and
needs
to
be
able
to
represent
itself
to
organizations
and
attract
sponsorship
and
other
financial
support,
but
we've
had
feedback
over
the
years.
H
This
is
a
rather
older
example,
but
certainly
it
was
the
case
that
various
people
would
say
why
the
heck
is
it
every
time
there's
an
IETF
coming
up.
I
get
a
phone
call
from
this
guy
and
I
saw
that
because
it's
my
sock
staff
doing
the
work
for
the
IETF.
But
how
do
you
get
the
right
balance
of
representing
and
who
is
us
and
when
are
we
and
when
are
we
separate
entities?
C
B
B
H
I
It's
odd
gotta
you
gotta,
really
hit
close.
This
is
the
the
Bing
Crosby
approach
as
Leslie
known
as
I'm,
both
a
member
of
the
ia
OC,
the
chair
of
the
legal
committee
and
when
I
turned
my
head
around
I'm.
Also
a
member
of
the
I
sock
board
and
its
corporate
secretary
and
everything
you
say
is
absolutely
correct.
We
absolutely
need
more.
We
need
we
need
to
be
able
to
draw
a
line
between.
I
This
is
the
IETF,
and
this
is
AI
sock
because
of
all
the
administrative
issues
we've
got
I
mean,
on
the
other
hand,
I
think
it
was
not.
It
has
not
been
super
productive
to
obsess
about
like.
Are
we
going
to
be
a?
Are
you
gonna
be
a
subsidiary
or
the
I'm
just
wondering
in
the
in
the
discussion
of
the
various
organizations
is
the
phrase
private
foundation
ever
come
up,
sounds
like
it
hasn't,
okay,
that
yeah!
That's!
Why
that's?
Why
it's
a
separate
organization
won't
work
and
either
you're
getting
a
briefing
for
Sandi
later
and
she'll.
I
Explain
why
so
wow
I
mean
so
what
I
wouldn't
encourage
us
to
do
is
figure
out
what
you
know
figure
out
what
the
administrative
structure
needs
to
be
mean
really
I
mean
assuming
that
there's
going
to
be
some
sort
of
some
sort
of
of
IET
I.
Think
you
know
what
would
the
board
look
like
you
know,
how
would
the
would
you
have
a
business
board
separate
from
the
life
like
the
program
board?
It
might
be
like
the
committees
figure
out
how
it's
going
to
be,
how
it's
going
to
be
selected.
I
I
mean
a
subsidiary
of
I
saw,
can
be
run
totally
independently.
Pir
is,
in
my
opinion,
astonishingly
independent
of
Isaac
I
mean
we.
We
talked
to
them,
maybe
once
a
year
and
and
I
think
it's
and
yeah,
and
one
other
comment
is
that
it
is
not
realistic
to
imagine
an
IETF
that
doesn't
is
not
still
predominant
pride.
It
predominantly
funded
by
Isaac
I
mean
you
will
never
find
so
much
money
with
so
few
Springs
anywhere
else.
I
You
know-
and
you
know
and
I
think
about
half
of
the
I
think
about
half
of
the
I
saw
board,
is
here
in
the
room.
You
know
I
think
we
all
feel
the
same
way.
It's
like
you
know,
although
I
sock
has
grown
way
beyond
what
it
would
it
used
to
be
mean,
I
saw
you
know
at
this
point.
The
ITF
is
about
10%
of
my
socks
budget
and
it
used
to
be
a
lot
more
and
that's
not
because
the
ietf,
the
trunk
is
just
because
I
saw
a
grown
grown.
I
Otherwise
you
know-
and
so
you
know,
I
think
we
figure
out
like
how
would
we
you
know?
How
would
we
choose
the
you
know
the
the
administrative
into
it?
Basically,
the
corporate
board
that
would
be
in
charge
of
the
contracts.
How
do
we
figure
out
as
easy
to
say?
Are
they
the
same
people
who
are
gonna,
you
know
figure
out
the
other
other
administrative
issues
and
I
think
so
the
legal
stuff
will
foot
will
fall
out
fairly.
Obviously,
from
that.
F
Thank
you
and
just
a
quick
reply:
I
I.
Do
you
agree
that
that
the
the
details
of
exactly
how
you
structure
the
organization
that
that's
what
what
is
what
would
matter
is
it
may
be
a
more
than
then
you
know
like
discussing
of
the
high-level
bits
when
we
get
to
the
you
know.
How
do
we
select
the
board
and
such
that?
That's
that's
where
the
substance
really
is.
I
H
I
H
Just
make
this
simplest,
perhaps
I
think
the
first
order
of
business
is
is
understanding,
if
which
side
of
the
line
people
feel
that
we
should
fall
on
whether
we
sort
of
halt
closer
into
I
sock,
ie,
I
figure
out
how
to
make
is
a
plus
plus
work
or
whether
we
pursue
some
structure.
That's
has
some
independence.
Oh
we.
I
L
To
be
asked
on
Durham
not
wearing
IOC
had
just
personal
opinion,
one
like
two
quick
comments:
one
I,
don't
one
thing:
I'm,
not
sure
whether
you
touched
enough
is
we
have
this
funding
no
going
to
sponsor
going
for
sponsorships
by
I
sock,
and
some
of
these
sponsorships
are
for
I
sock
and
some
of
the
sponsorships
are
for
ietf
collected
by
I
sock,
but
also
in
the
end,
like
these
things,
merge
and
and
like
sometimes
may
create
confusion.
I
think
we've
seen
this
in
the
past
and
actually
from
the
list
of
the
things
that
you
mentioned.
L
This
will
probably
be
one
of
the
rather
on
the
top
for
me
how
to
solve
that,
and
one
let's
say
observation
as
a
outgoing
IOC
member.
All
of
the
things
you
mentioned
are
absolutely
right.
I
just
want
to
also
give
a
little
balance
to
this.
All
of
these
things
we
did
manage
to
overcome
to
handle.
So
it's
this.
L
These
are
not
things
that
we
cannot
handle
every
single
thing,
yeah,
it's
kind
of
uncomfortable,
but
like
I,
don't
want
you
guys
to
get
the
impression
this
is
unsolvable,
like
every
single
one
of
these,
we
have
solved
in
operation
not
in
the
best
way,
but
like
this
is
not
a
burning
platform
for
one
single
item
that
the
mass
of
the
things
is,
what
kind
of
drives
this
it?
In
my
humble
personal
opinion,.
F
M
Hi
Wendy
Seltzer
with
a
couple
of
different
perspectives.
One
is
from
w3c
as
the
world
wide
web
consortium
is
also
not
a
legal
entity,
and
we
are
also
struggling
with
these
sorts
of
questions
of
how
do
we
make
it
easier
for
ourselves
to
sign
contracts,
do
work
and
form
an
overstride
site
structure?
For
those
who
don't
know,
w3c
is
hosted
by
you
know,
as
for
host
institutions,
each
of
which
manage
the
employees
each
and
through
the
consortium
manage
our
arrangement.
So
you
have
the
problem
in
quadruplicate.
M
We
do
indeed-
and
yet
we
too
are
finding
it's
a
grand
challenge
to
move
to
a
legal
entity,
type
structure
or
even
find
the
consensus
on
what
that
would
look
like.
But
then,
looking
at
at
this
set
of
alternatives
from
the
perspective
of
a
participant
and
I
see
a
lot,
that's
been
working
quite
well
as
is,
and
that
one
thing
I
didn't
see
reflected
so
much
in
some
of
the
alternatives.
Further
on
toward
independence
was
the
sort
of
institutional
motivations
that
building
a
more
independent
institution.
M
H
So
before
you
get
too
far
from
microphone
just
so
that
I
understand
what
you're
saying
and
are
you
concerned
that
an
independent
organization,
variety
of
admin,
dot,
org
I'd,
have
him
in
org
can't
say
or
without
a
dot
before
it
sorry
would
essentially
get
a
life
of
its
own
and
try
to
go
off
and
mission
itself.
Yes,.
B
When
you
before
you
go
Kanaka
das
as
well,
it
you,
how
do
you
see
that
being
different
with
I
sock?
I
guess
I
mean
so
in
some
level
right
I
mean
there,
there
are
people
who
do
these
roles
and
they
have
their
own
kind
of
you
know
mission
creep
wherever
they
are
right,
so
you
can't
you
can't
eliminate
that
the
question
is
just:
is
it
better
for
the
IDF's,
an
organization
if
the
place
where
that
creek
could
take
place
is
closer
to
us
or
maybe
more
distant
from
us.
M
J
Authority
speaking
no
particular
hat
on
I
got
up
originally
when
John
Levine
was
talking
because
he
said,
and
all
of
this
will
fall
out
into
an
obvious
legal
structure
which
caused
my
billable
hours
sense
to
go.
Bing
Bing,
Bing,
Bing
Bing
over
the
top
of
everything
else.
I
was
hearing
because
that
didn't
seem
to
me
very
likely.
J
I
think
the
point
I
would
make
in
in
reacting
to
this
is
that
almost
everything
you've
described
here
could
be
handled
in
multiple
ways.
If
you
really
had
multiple
business
units
and
that
the
legal
structure
around
those
business
units
isn't
the
critical
part,
it's
making
very
clear
what
it's
possible
for
the
business
units
to
make
independent
choices
about
and
what
it
is
not
accept.
J
Why
is
I
saw
calling
me
about
the
IETF
and
if
what
we
need
to
do
to
solve
that
problem
is
an
organizational
structure
that
makes
that
branding
significantly
different
in
the
in
the
eyes
of
the
funders,
for
both
of
the
missions
of
Isaac
I.
Think,
that's
that's
important
for
us
to
recognize
as
a
reason
we're
doing
it,
because
I
think
it
also
hints
to
us
that
the
amount
of
structure
we
need
and
the
amount
of
staff
we
need
shouldn't,
be
changing
that
much
as
a
result
of
this
I
did
see
this
slide.
J
Where
yari
said
you
know
there,
there
are
new
things
we
want
to
do
and
setting
up
such
a
structure
obviously
involves
things
that
that
new
organization
will
have
to
do,
but
we
also
should
be
very,
very
careful
that
we
don't
try
and
use
this
exercise
to
obscure
other
issues
with
energy
within
the
community
and
substituting
staff
energy,
for
especially
the
technical
work
of
the
IETF,
is
something
we've
avoided
for
many
many
years
and
I
think
should
still
be
on
top
of
our
mind
as
we
consider
the
next
structure.
Thanks.
E
Brian
carpenter,
no
hat
I
just
have
to
feed
guilty
to
having
being
a
member
of
the
original
IOC
and
therefore
it's
all
my
fault,
Leslie
thanks
very
much.
For
this
analysis,
that's
actually
very,
very
useful.
I
believe
what
I
really
wanted
to
say
is:
let's
assume
that
we
go
for
a
new
org.
Let's
assume
that
we
realized.
That
means
we
have
to
obsolete
RFC
4:07,
one
rewrite
a
new
version
right.
Well,
the
current
version
took
about
a
year
there
in
a
year
and
a
half
right
as
I.
E
Remember,
it
wasn't
done
very
quickly
and
we
weren't
even
talking
about
incorporating
something
as
part
of
the
process
until
the
IETF
trust
came
up
at
the
last
moment.
So
this
is
going
to
take
a
long
time
being
realistic.
E
Because
then
you
start
to
get
some
of
the
problems
solved
in
the
next
three
months,
maybe
rather
than
waiting
a
18
months
for
a
document
to
get
written
and
proved
and
an
organization
to
get
incorporated
and
all
the
other
things
that
will
go
on
so
I
I
think
we
we
have
the
opportunity
to
do
some
things
pretty
soon.
That
would
fix
some
of
the
problems.
H
N
N
The
question
people
keep
suggesting,
for
instance,
oh
well,
we've
got
this
problem
where
we're
going
to
create
a
new
bureaucracy
and
so
on,
or
are
there
going
to
be
a
bunch
of
costs
that
we're
going
to
have
to
pay
and
the
like
and
I
think
that
that
is
allowing
the
structural
mechanisms?
We
have
right
now
to
obscure
costs
that
somebody
is
paying
now
right
now,
we've
got
a
bunch
of
externalized
costs
and
some
of
them
are
externalized.
By
from
from
I
sock
on
to
us
that
is,
for
instance,
the
fundraising
problem
right.
N
Why,
as
I
saw
calling
me
over
the
ietf,
so
we
end
up
with
this
cost?
We
can't
do.
We
can't
do
the
fundraising
we
might
want
because
of
the
structural
structural
issues,
and
then
there
are
things
that
are
externalized
from
us
into
into
I
sake.
There's
been
some
effort
to
try
to
fix
that
in
accounting
like
how
much
is
I
socked
spending
on
on
you
know,
communication
staff,
or
how
much
is
I
socked
spending
on
on
doing
the
accounting
for
this
and
so
on?
And
that
is
that's
currently
just
externalized
from
us
right.
N
It's
it's
subsumed
under
the
larger
under
the
larger
piece,
and
we
haven't
thought
about
that
very
carefully.
People
keep
suggesting,
for
instance,
we'd,
create
new
bureaucracy.
Well,
that
bureaucracy
is
gonna
exist,
you're
gonna
have
to
have
it
right:
somebody's
got
to
do
supervision
of
employees
and
so
on,
and
it
just
happens
to
be
that
at
the
moment
we
don't
have
to
pay
for
that.
Well,
that's
no
good
right!
N
Therefore
we
need
to
decide
whether
we
want
to
be
grown-ups
about
this
and
run
those
things
and
actually
do
them
or
accept
that
we're
simply
an
activity
of
I
sock
and
in
that
case,
I
sock
is
going
to
make
those
decisions
for
us.
Maybe
it's
going
to
make
them
and
I
think
so
far.
It
has
made
them
in
a
benevolent
way,
but
but
really
that's
a
choice
that
we
need
to
make.
N
I
sock
appears
to
be
from
all
indications
completely
supportive
of
what
we
want
to
do
here
and
the
question
is:
do
we
want
to
be
grownups
and
do
this
or
do
we
want
to
continue
to
be?
You
know,
Ward's
of
I
sock
either
way
is
okay
with
me.
You
know
if
the
community
picks
one
or
the
other,
but
I.
Don't
think
we're
being
clear
about
about
which
of
those
we're
gonna
do
and
I
think
that
that
that
decision
would
be
helpful.
H
Just
sort
of
as
a
follow-on
to
both
that
and
Brian's
comment,
I
think
that
over
the
course
of
the
last
year
we
have
been
actually
well.
The
last
couple
years
we've
been
trying
to
capture
better
capture
the
eye,
socket
ences
on
some
of
the
stuff
that
was
sort
of
rolled
up
into
their
budget,
but
also.
O
So
show
ably
current
ATF
sponsorship
person
I
just
wanted
to
the
few
people
have
pointed
out
that
they
are
wonderful
to
see.
You
know
painful
memories
that
are
still
not
yet
suppressed,
that
they've
been
called
and
it's
been
ambiguous
whose
the
call
has
been
for,
and
they
don't
know
why
the
style
of
sponsorship
acquisition
is
as
it
is,
for
the
ITF,
because
perhaps
it's
jarring
in
some
way.
Nobody
I
believe
has
been
called
in
the
last
six
months
in
from
somebody
who
purports
to
be
from
I
sock
cold.
O
Calling
is
not
the
approach
that
I've
been
trying
to
do
it
I'm
not
suggesting
for
a
second
that
the
sponsorship
problem
is
solved
because
it
we
have.
We
still
have
lots
of
work
to
do,
but
that
particular
ambiguity,
as
Leslie
pointed
out
when
she
went
over
the
cell
in
the
spreadsheet,
is
kind
of
an
older
problem.
So
it's
not
I,
don't
think
a
current
area
of
concern,
but
it's
good
to
hear
that
it's
important
and.
F
Yeah,
it's
just
a
quick
follow-up
to
what
Andrew
was
saying.
You
were
talking
about
externalizing
costs
and
you
know:
somebody's
gonna
pay
for
a
particular
thing,
whether
it's
us
visibly
or
or
I
sock
I
wanted
to
make
the
friendly
amendment
that
that,
if
you
have
a
clear
organization
than
that,
you
know
you're
just
sort
of
moving
money
around
or
that
the
payee
is
different.
P
So
you
know
I
I'm
glad
to
hear
we're
not
just
cold
calling
people
that
that's
good
I
can
say
that
as
someone
who
is
like
a
sort
of
microscopic
donor
to
to
to
ITF
in
the
past,
I'm
certainly
I
was
confused
just
and
that
was
like
three
months
ago
four
months
ago.
P
Is
there
like
why
I
was
negotiating
with
I
sock
over
whose
bill
for
the
money
so
I'm
not
sure
problem
is
like
Ashley
entirely
solved
and
we
haven't
heard
much
Global
hosts
today,
some
of
the
people
get
up
and
talk
about
their
experience.
Like
I.
Remember
the
last
time
people
say
there
was
confusion,
and
so
maybe
maybe
that
confusion
still
is
this.
P
That
was
my
impression
at
least,
but
actually
got
up
to
talk
about
on
the
sort
of
issue
of
sisters,
staff
capture
of
ITF,
so
I
I
II
too,
am
concerned
about
this
issue.
I
guess
what
I'm
surprised
to
hear
is
that
people
think
that
that
issue
is
an
issue
that
is
created
by
having
a
city
area
where
I
gather
around
you
know,
I,
look
around
and
I
see
ice
I
house,
like
an
enormous
staff
and
a
lot
of
people
are
technical.
P
People
are
getting
to
have
to
go
work
in
their
shop,
an
IETF,
and
you
have
to
go
work
here
and
every
through
C
has
kinda
the
same
structure
really
have
my
technical
people
did
have
to
go
work
and
so
having
an
organization
which
is
in
fact
chartered
to
do
a
dual
charter
roles,
one
of
which
is
to
do
technical
stuff
and
there
is
to
support
ITF.
P
That's
what
creates
def
capture
having
an
organization
which
is
chartered
entirely
to
you
know
to
make
sure
that,
like
it,
trains
run
on
time,
we
have
hotel
rooms,
is
recreation
on
staff
capture.
I've
never
had
to
have
a
conversation
with
LexA
about,
like
you
know
what
TLS
had
to
do
actually
have
plenty
conversations
with
staff
about
what
TLS
I'm.
Q
Q
Yeah,
so
one
thing,
quick
that
is
on
the
list
of
missed
things
is
I,
saw
currently
has
an
appeal,
NomCom,
etc
function
set
of
functions
that
was
not
mentioned
in
the
document.
I,
don't
think
it's
gonna
be
hard
to
figure
out
what
to
do
about
that,
but
it
has
to
be
dealt
with.
The
thing
that
I
mainly
came
up
about
was
right.
Now,
the
way
I
sell
my
employer
to
do
something
financially
for
the
IETF
is
say,
become
a
member
of
I
sock,
because
member
is
really
important
to
my
organization.
Q
They
love
that
word
member
and
it's
not
clear
to
me
how
we
make
that
happen
if
it's
an
independent
entity
and
so
I
think
we're
still
tied
into
getting
people
to
be
members
of
I
sock
to
make
money
too,
and
so
I.
Don't
think
that
last
problem
of
why,
as
I
saw
calling
me
goes
away,
it
actually
for
me,
is
an
easier
selling
point
because
I
can
say:
I
sock
supports,
ietf
become
a
member
of
I
sock,
that's
a
good
thing,
and
so
that's
simple.
Q
For
my
organizational
standpoint,
the
sort
of
bigger
overarching
question
and
and
I'm
hoping
the
answer
is
relatively
simple:
has
I
sock
is
I
sock
at
this
point,
and
this
is
I
guess
to
the
board
or
to
Kathy
sort
of
you
guys
talk
amongst
yourselves
about
what
you
want
the
outcome
to
be,
and
we
don't
have
a
strong
opinion
yet
of
what
we
think
the
outcome
should
be
or
does.
I
sock
have
an
opinion
about
what
the
outcome
should
be
at
this
point
yet
and
what
the
financial
connection
will
be,
it
cetera
and
so
forth.
Q
F
Was
having
some
problem
with
John's
charger
there?
He
didn't
want
me
to
come
here
so
I
think
we
made
it
quite
clear
when
we
passed
the
resolution
a
few
months
ago.
This
works
better,
so
I
think
we.
We
made
it
quite
clear
when
we
passed
the
resolution
on
on
these
restructuring
charges,
which
our
position
is
like
you
know,
you
guys
seem
to
you
know,
be
basically
considering
several
options.
Some
of
them.
They
will
basically
need
some
initial
funding.
We
are
very
happy
to
do
that.
We
have
allocated
1
million
dollars
so
far.
F
G
F
Honest,
so
you
guys
decide
what
you
want
to
do.
We
will
support
it
talking
with
some
of
you
this
morning
and
in
the
previous
days
they
were
also
wondering
about
the
money
flow
right.
I
mean
that's
not
going
to
change.
We.
We
are
happy
to
support
the
IDF,
whether
it's
you
know
whatever
you
want
to
become
so
in
that
sense,
I
think
that's
what
Pete
was
asking.
So
is
really
your
decision
and
we
are
happy
to
support
I,
don't
know
what
else
can
I
say.
R
R
I'm,
the
treasurer
of
I
sock,
so
the
other
thing
I
guess
I,
some
other
things
but
I
want
to
say
about
its
kind
of
reaction
with
Gonzalo
had
to
say
and
the
question
that
you
raised
and
things
that
I've
heard.
In
other
times.
We
went
to
write
one
time
and
you
know
the
kind
people
you
know
they
they
gave
us
donation
to
ice
aquagenic
go
into
the
ITF
endowment
and
some
people
have
said
some
things
on
the
since
said
some
things
and
Aaron
did
as
well.
R
It
gives
like
a
million
dollars
and
right
gave
us
like
100,000
euros
over
ten
years
or
something-
and
that's
that's
great
right.
Their
question
was
well.
Why
are
we
giving
you
this
money?
Are
you
as
I
suck
running
away
like?
Are
you
kicking
the
ietf
out,
and
people
said
that
on
the
is
a
2
dot
LS
and
my
black
brain
is
exploding
nobody
an
eye
sock
on
the
board
or
anybody
that
I
think
that
works
for
I
sock
has
ever
said
that
I,
like
I,
have
no
like.
R
No
one
has
said
like
hey
get
the
hell
out
of
here.
You
know:
here's!
Your
million
bucks
and
buzz
off
right.
That's
just
not
that's
not
the
thing,
that's
happening
so,
okay
and
I.
Guess
to
your
specific
question
about
like
are
these
things
that
you've
you
know
heard
over
the
years
as
a
participant
I
mean
take
my
hat
off
his
eye?
Socket?
Yes,.
I
R
Think
a
paraphrasing
I
would
argue,
maybe
about
where
a
comma
was
in
one
of
the
sentences
earlier,
that
pretty
much
nails
it
personally
I
think
that
it
makes
much
more
sense
to
professionalize
the
organization.
I
think
I
sock
is
in
the
throes
of
doing
that
itself
and
I
think
that
the
ITF
has
grown
up
over
many
years
and
needs
to
continue
to
do
that
and
being
in
control
of
its
things
and
not
having
to
like
in
some
sense
like
hey,
where
the
hell
are
you
can
you
sign?
R
R
R
Like
fundraising
thing,
we
hear
this
all
the
time
from
people
I
get
me
earful
and
I
mean
it
seems
like
it's
been
kind
of
fixed
in
the
past
six
months,
because
it
got
fixed
because
the
leaders
agreed
to
basically
like
do
it
a
certain
way,
which
is
like
don't
call,
call
and
have
separate
and
I
think
that
just
kind
of
makes
more
sense
because
I
hear
this
from
people
all
the
time
acquire.
They
call
I
mean
it's
crazy.
So.
H
Well,
Gonzalo
is
walking
up
I'll
just
put
in
a
plug
to
form.
I
probably
now
expired
graft.
The
is
our
retrospective
document,
because
in
that
tried
to
capture
a
little
bit
of
a
yes,
these
are
two
organizations
I
sock
in
the
ITF
that
have
taken
on
new
challenges
and
have
both
been
growing
over
the
last
dozen
years.
Your
point
about
I
sock
as
well,
going
through
some
changes,
hi.
S
I'm
Jonas
or
Noonan
and
I
I
was
part
of
the
I
think
the
first
I
UC,
or
something
like
that
very
early
on,
haven't
been
that
involved
well
sometime,
but
following
this
is
a
2.0
discussion,
a
couple
of
things
first,
so
the
new
document
is
I,
think
it's
much
more
kind
of
like
mature
than
the
previous
ones,
which
is,
of
course
to
be
expected,
and
it
is
much
clearer
on
the
kind
of
like
problems
and
how
to
solve
them
and
stuff
like
that
and
I
do
agree
that
there
is.
S
It
is
time
to
do
some
change
up
to
and
years
so
that
is
good
as
well.
But
the
thing
is
what
I'm
kind
of
like
a
little
bit
sill
worried
during
this
discussion
that
we're
talking
about
that
doing
the
legal
kind
of
organizational
change
to
your
legal
structure
or
something
like
that
that
that
will
automatically
change
something
or
keeping
something
in
I
sock
internally
as
an
activity,
is
really
bad
and
couldn't
change.
Something
I
mean
like
like
Ted,
said
in
many
organizations.
S
I
think
flexible
enough
for
the
IETF
to
function
internally,
if
it's
preferred
to
have
it
as
a
little
bit
more
external
as
a
subsidiary,
that's
doable
as
well,
but
I.
Don't
think
that
the
any
of
these
kind
of
like
three
organize
a
three
possibilities
or
re
are
really
needed
to
achieve
what
is
wanted.
It
is
a
question
of
will
and
a
question
of
what
is
a
preferred
way
of
kind
of
like
doing
that
and
all
have
and
legal
and
an
organizational
structure
that
is
possible.
S
S
Personally,
then,
on
these
kind
of
like
three
options,
I
would
say.
The
two
first
ones
are
something
that
I
would
support.
Third,
one
I
would
see
us
in
very
problematic
because
it
might
open
up
discussions
that
we
haven't
gone
I
have
to.
We
don't
have
to
go
into
in
the
others
like
which,
in
which
jurisdiction
IETF
should
be
incorporated.
S
What
is
the
kind
of
like
what
are
the
contracts
then
in
place
with
Isaac
and
so
on,
which
I
I
think
that
that
would
be
an
unfortunate
or
true
complex
way
of
doing
this,
then
about
and
the
last
thing
that
I
wanted
to
make
is
the
about
I
saw
calling
us
or
not?
I
really,
don't
see
this
as
a
problem.
It's
the
question
is
about
the
execution
more.
S
If
the
person
that
calls
from
Isaac
says
this
is
clearly
for
ietf
I,
think
organizations
understand
that
at
least
organizations
that
have
been
around
for
a
long
time,
because
we
know
what
the
relationship
with
Isaac
and
IETF
is.
However,
if
the
person
from
my
so
calls
him
says,
like
I,
have
these
three
things:
I
need
money
for
and
they're
all
separate,
and
one
of
them
is
IETF
yeah.
That
could
confuse
things,
but
this
is
again:
it's
not
a
question
about
structural
separation
or
branding.
It's
a
question
about
execution
more.
E
L
Tobey
is
gonna,
oh
I
need
to
okay,
maybe
I.
Take
this
in
my
hand,
so
first,
like
as
a
member
of
the
Finance
Committee
I
would
say.
Isaac
has
been
always
oh,
very,
very
generous
and,
like
super
helpful
in
any
time
when,
if
there
was
a
budget
gap,
okay,
so
it's
like
I
have
never
encountered
a
situation
where
Isaac
would
not
have
said
sure
no
problem.
We
take
care
of
it
with
this
going
to
the
donors
like.
If
you
are
in
external
entity,
you
may
some
people
may
think.
L
Okay,
so
I'm
a
Mayan
like
Pete
trigger
this
thought
in
me.
Am
I
a
member
of
ITF
or
am
ia
member
of
I
sock,
because
I
sock
has
a
different
mission?
Okay,
so
slightly
different
mission,
you,
you
are
more
outward
policy
oriented
and
that
might
might
have
different
motivations
for
sponsors
to
say
yes
or
no
and
I'm.
Not.
Judging
on
that
last
thought,
is
you
say
all
these
donations
actually
are
not
an
issue
I'm
not
so
sure,
because
he,
if
I,
donate
to
I
sock
one
way
or
the
other.
L
F
Yeah
yeah
I
mean
this
is
actually
as
Tobias
was
saying
up
a
bit
more
complicated
and
just
you
know
a
simple
answer,
but
first
I
mean
you
were
asking
about
as
a
global
host
I
think
they
are
Co
like
not
and
as
ericsson
in
particular
and
I
agree
with
your
Nate.
That
I
mean
we
made
these
work.
It
was
problematic
now
that
all
the
contracts
are
signed.
We
are
giving
money
every
year,
I
mean
it's,
it
kind
of
works.
F
So
for
us
it's
really
not
a
problem,
but
when
we
did
this
original,
it
was
a
problem
because
you
had
to
justify.
Basically,
as
as
Peter
said,
my
organization
also
loves
memberships
and
we
are
already
a
member
of
AIESEC.
So
when
I
go
there
and
we
need
to
pay
whatever
more
is
not
really
clear.
Another
problem
is
basically
that
you
know
I.
So
basically,
you
know
the
three
legs.
We
have
right,
like
technology
policies
on
communities,
they
come
from
three
different
corporate
budgets.
F
One
is
you
know,
CSR,
the
other
is
more
like
standards
and
City
office
and
the
other
is
more
like
the
lobbies
type
of
thing.
So
it's
actually
complicated.
We
let
our
Platinum
members
earmark
their
money,
so
they
can
actually,
you
know,
channel
their
money
directly
to
the
ITF,
but
not
if
you
are
contributing
less
so
that
could
be
something
that
could
be
fixed,
but
anyway,
I
mean
just
you
know,
insert
I,
think
for
new
donors
or
sponsors
of
the
ITF.
T
Very
libo,
huawei
directly
answering
Shaun's
question
I
think
it's
actually
kind
of
an
odd
question.
Huawei
understands
that
we
support
IETF
by
going
through
I
saw
if
that
changes,
and
we
support
IETF
in
another
way.
Huawei
will
continue
to
support
IETF
in
whatever
way
it's
set
up
to
to
be
supported.
So
the
the
structure
isn't
relevant.
From
that
point
of
view,
we
should
decide
what
we
need.
Administrative
Lee
and
the
rest
of
it
I
believe
will
fall
out.
T
I
think
we
got
where
we
are,
because
I
sock
grow
right,
I
sock,
not
not
so
much
in
size,
although
somewhat
but
in
scope.
So
if
we
decide
that
we
need
a
different
administrative
structure
and
to
separate
our
legal
administrative
structure
from
I
thought,
we
need
to
make
sure
we
define
that
in
a
way
that
isn't
going
to
also
grow
in
scope
in
the
same
way
and
spend
become
another
problem
ten
years
later.
That's
so
we
need
to
be
careful
about
that.
R
Thank
you.
They
made
musio
with
Cisco
Systems
I
work
with
David
Ward
and
have
been
behind
the
scenes,
driving
the
operation
side
for
IETF
sponsorship
and
and
I
saw
I.
They
sit
and
listen
to
everybody.
I
think
everybody's
on
their
same
track,
so
as
a
host
and
sponsor
I'm
optimistic
what's
happening,
but
I
do
believe
that
there's
I
almond
of
clarity,
consistency
and
channeling
I
think
I've
heard
all
those
three
words.
R
So
if
I
already
been
spoken,
clarity
of
just
who
we're
dealing
with
I
ate
myself
after
you
know
eight
10
years,
never
know
you
think.
That's
consistent
is
the
I.
The
rest
of
it
is
there's
a
whether
it's
I
soccer
IETF
it
gets
meddled
and
I
need
to.
You
know,
I
think
the
opportunity
and
that's
with
both
organizations
to
figure.
R
R
Sometimes
we
want
to
be
a
member,
because
a
member
gives
us
some
rights
and
we
want
to
be
able
to
be
in
veil
involved.
Sometimes
it's
just.
We
want
to
just
maybe
it's
a
donation
charity
just
so
it
supports
the
activity.
We
want
to
do
that.
The
flipside,
when
you
look
at
an
enterprise
company,
is
that
we
have
different
means
of
getting
money.
We
have
corporate
charity
components
that
we
can
bring
money
into
an
organization
that
help
out
or
its
effects.
You
know
the
hosting
event
that
this
week
came
from
Dave
boards,
optics
right.
R
We
had
we
run
fiscal
quarters
and
years
and
we've
got
to
work
within
that
or-
and
that's
one
guy,
because
we
had
one
good
sponsor.
We
also
have
five
different
left:
seven
different
business
groups
that
may
have
an
interest.
We
have
a
hon
or
some
odd
people
that
show
up
here
from
different
quotes
like
our
Cisco,
that
we
can
get
money
from.
R
So
it's
a
bit
of
a
challenge
that
we
do
it,
how
we
get
the
money,
how
it
gets
channeled
to
the
right
folks
and
what
the
interest
is
of
people
at
Cisco,
what
they
want
to
get
the
value
out
of
it.
So
if
all
those
things
were
in
consideration
based
on
where
you
started
from
think
you're
on
the
right
track,
but
the
enterprises
we
do
have
a
challenge
in
getting
getting
the
money
having
the
money
and
continue
being
representative
yeah
for
it.
R
V
I'm
Richard
Barnes
I
work
for
Cisco,
but
I
have
no
insights
as
to
how
Cisco
does
it
makes
any
of
these
decisions
so
I'm
glad
deeming
was
in
front
of
me
in
line
I
wanted
to
get
a
pair
up
to
push
back
on
this
kind
of
business
unit.
Framing
that
Ted
and
Jana
brought
up
I
think
the
is.
It
is
true.
That's
you
know
restructuring
some
things
internally,
and
this
is
a
plus
plus
or
framing,
can
add.
Some
incremental
degrees
of
clarity
can
clarify
certain
things
about
how
the
administrative
activities
are
run
themselves.
V
What
I,
don't
think
it
can
really
clarify,
is
kind
of
these.
Some
of
these
transparency
objectives,
you
know
in
terms
of
providing
the
ietf
community
more
direct
control,
I
mean
as
long
as
the
administrative
organization.
The
administrative
resources
remain
under
the
direct
control
of
Isaac,
whether
that's
as
a
relatively
walled
off
business
unit
or
something
more
nebulous.
V
Good
as
long
as
we
have
that
you
know,
the
ultimate
decision
makers
will
be
the
I
saw
organization
and
and
their
management
and
their
their
board,
which
you
know
the
IETF
has
some
influence
over,
but
that's
pretty
attenuated
control.
So
I
think
as
as
Andrew
put
it
a
few
moments
ago
that
the
real
question
is
here.
To
what
degree
does
the
IETF
want
to
have
actual
control
and
stand
up
and
and
manage
their
administrative
activities
versus
continuing
to
be
a
word
of
some
other
organization?.
D
So
either
Lundin
from
Comcast,
NBC
Universal,
so
I'm
up
here,
you
know
on
two
points:
number
one
is
the
the
financing
model
of
our
contribution.
So
we
are
both
platinum
members,
so
we're
both
platinum
members
of
I
sock
and
we
we
are
Platinum
members
of
ice-locked
because
we
value
what
I
sock
does
and
we
understand
what
it
does
as
a
distinct
entity
for
my
ITF
and
we
are
also
global
hosts
of
the
ITF
and
I'll.
Tell
you
in
my
my
budget
for
I
butcher
for
this
expense.
D
Every
year,
I
have
two
line
items
they're
different
line
items
they're,
not
one
there
too.
So
we
figured
it
out.
We
wait.
We
see
the
difference
between
two
that
said
it's.
It
would
not
be
hard
for
people
that
we
are
trying
to
try
to
do
sponsors
to
have
a
great
deal
of
confusion
between
the
two
and
who
I'm
dealing
with.
If
I'm
talking
to
people
in
this
room,
you
already
all
get
it.
D
D
My
view
on
how
you
structure
this
stuff,
however,
is
that,
instead
of
worried
about
necessarily
the
funding
how
the
money
flows
in
as
the
primary
driver
for
how
you
structure
it,
you
first
should
figure
out,
and
it's
actually
very
good.
Then
you
really
way
you've
broken
this
out.
Leslie
is
to
figure
out
what
the
problems
are,
that
we
have
to
deal
organizationally
with
operationally
and
day
to
day
stuff
how
to
make
that
run
smoothly.
D
How
to
structure
to
be
smoothly,
then
the
fall
apart
follow
on
from
there
is,
and
the
driver
for
that
is
essentially
how
do
you
spend
the
money?
How
do
you
interact
on
track?
How
do
you
buy
a
thing?
How
do
you
make
choices?
How
do
you
manage
figure
that
ever
figure
what
you
need
to
do,
organizationally
to
make
that
work
really?
G
G
I
think,
maybe
you
gave
me
a
heads
up
about
this,
but
I
was
still
shocked
and,
and
a
lot
of
that
has
to
do
with
the
changing
landscape
of
of
our
funders
and
the
fact
that
there's
this
additional
barrier
at
the
beginning
of
every
conversation
with
one
of
them
who
were
not
here,
I,
have
found
to
be
kind
of
taxing.
It
takes
up
a
lot
of
time
to
try
and
draw
out
those
distinctions.
I
also
wanted
to
respond
to
something
that
that
Joe
ably
said
about
the
the
recent
changes
in
the
in
the
approach.
G
As
far
as
the
sponsorship
fundraising
goes,
those
came
about
because
Leslie
and
I
and
and
Ray
took
the
initiative
to
find
Joe
ably
and
ask
him
to
come.
Come
help
and
change
the
approach
and
again
that
you
know.
That
is
time
that
is
taken
away
from
volunteers
in
the
ITF
community,
who
are
supposed
to
be
busy
doing
their
technical
work
and,
and
instead
was
was,
was
spent
doing
that.
So
that
is
something
that
I
think
also
is
one
of
the
one
of
the
drivers
around.
J
It's
not
really
working,
though
I
I
I
wanted
to
get
back
to
that
point,
though,
and
that's
I,
think
something
that
andrew
has
a
very
persuasive
manner,
but
I
think
we
disagree
on
this
I
think
in
every
one
of
these
proposals
we
are
ceasing
to
be
a
ward
of
Isaac.
The
difference
is
in
one
of
these
we're
moving
from
a
subsidy
pendant
relationship
to
a
partnership,
and
we
are
asking
hey.
You
have
funded
us,
but
now
recognize
that
we
need
to
be
able
to
operate
independently
as
part
of
a
partnership.
J
J
What's
currently
one
organization
and
I
keep
hearing
people
say
you
know
the
ITF
and
I
suck
as
if
they
were
two
organizations,
and
it
seems,
like
a
very
large
part
of
this
community,
never
really
internalize
the
fact
that
we
are
part
of
AIESEC
and
have
been
for
ten
years
and
I
all
right.
So
various
people
are
giving
me
different
decades
here
we're
going
to
sit
down
over
a
CNR,
flavored
cup
of
coffee
sometime
and
discuss
this
further
and
Bob
Kahn
will
haunt
our
discussion
or
maybe
we'll
just
call
them
up.
J
I,
don't
know,
but
I
think
that
the
important
point
here
is
all
of
these
are
intended
to
make
us
no
longer
a
ward
of
Isaac,
and
it
really
is
a
in
partnership
with
I
saw.
The
very
first
thing
we
need
to
do
is
whether
it's
partners
or
or
or
moving
into
the
relationship,
is
work
with
Isaac
to
see
which
one
of
these
things
works
best
for
them.
J
S
So
Yanis
women
again
at
the
microphone
and
I,
think
that
I
agree
with
most
what
Ted
said:
it's
not
the
org,
it's
not
the
legal
organization,
it's
the
organization.
How
does
IETF
want
to
administer,
do
the
administration
and
how
does
that
work
with
I
sock
the
best
way,
and
this
means
that
and
I
might
have
said
it
more
in
a
more
confused
manner
before,
but
the
thing
is
we
have
to
step
out
anyways
regardless.
What
is
the
legal
model?
And
that
is
the
kind
of
like
clear
thing.
S
That
is
the
important
thing
there
are
ways
of
doing
this
inside
a
sock
or
outside
eye.
So
that's
a
choice
that
has
to
be
made,
but
there
are
ways
of
doing
it,
but
the
important
thing
is
that
there's
a
model
where
IETF
gets
that
done
well
what
it
needs
to
be
what
me
to
get
done.
It
has
some
way
of
basically
organizing
that
it
has
a
way
of
directing
that
we
can
then
look
at
how
that
is.
The
best
way
is
done
legally
after
we
have
that
model.
S
Yeah
I
mean,
like
obviously,
now
different
organizations
doing
things
differently,
we're
first,
there
are
so
just
made
my
experience.
For
instance,
in
a
Linux
Foundation,
there
are
organizations
in
Linux
foundations
that
are
legal
and
separate
legal
entities
that
work
within
the
umbrella
of
Linux
Foundation.
There
are
organizations,
that's,
for
instance,
OPN
fe,
the
open
platform
for,
and
the
p
is
one
like
that.
There
are
organizations
like
open
network
automation
platform,
which
is
actually
part
of
Linux
Foundation,
but
it
still
has
a
governing
board.
S
It
still
has
their
own
own
finances
and
has
its
own
budget
and
every
kind
of
like
independence
over
the
mother
organization.
There.
We
can
do
you
either
over
here
as
well,
but
the
important
thing
is,
of
course,
that
and
I
thought
that
was
already
given
that
we
understand
that
there
are.
There
are
changes
that
have
to
be
made.
The
IETF
needs
more
independence
and
more
kind
of
like
control
over
the
its
resources,
but
how
to
organize
that
I
think
it's
a
it's
a
minor
point.
I
could.
B
Just
for
my
patient
Oakland,
sorry
well,
I,
just
you
go
first
now!
Well,
I
was
just
as
a
clarification.
I
mean.
What
is
there
any
like
specific
criteria?
You
might
identify
as
like
what
crosses
the
line
from
as
a
plus
plus
two
subsidiary,
like
what
you
know
is
there?
Is
there
any
condition?
Good
point
is
that
that's
when
that
would
be
necessary?
B
S
S
S
H
So
part
of
part
of
what
I'm
hearing
in
what
you
said
and
what
some
of
the
previous
speakers
have
said
and
I'll
say
it
out
loud
is
so
people
tell
me
I've
got
it
wrong.
I
think
that
in
part,
what
we
have
achieved
so
far
is
articulating
where
the
stresses
and
strains
are
and
the
current
administrative
reality
of
the
IETF.
H
E
I
posed
wanted
to
scream
at
you,
but
they
didn't
brian
carpenter
again.
I
originally
got
up
to
react
something
Richard
bond
said,
but
actually
all
the
other
speakers
in
front
of
me
have
confirmed
that
I
need
to
say
this.
The
essential
characteristic
of
the
new
model
and
I
don't
care
whether
the
thing
is
called
an
oversight
committee
or
a
board
or
a
subsidiary
board,
or
what
it's
called
it
needs
to
do.
E
Oversight
right,
we've
got
to
up
level
where
we
put
our
stakeholder
effort,
viewing
the
idea
for
the
stakeholder
right
to
the
point
where
we
are
overseeing
things
happening
automatically
in
the
work
in
the
works
that
we
want
to
happen.
We
should
say
what
we
want
to
happen
and
we
should
oversee
the
fact
that
they
do
happen
and
I
think,
and
you
know
again,
I'm
guilty
you're
guilty.
E
Everybody
who
served
in
the
IOC
is
guilty
of
not
implementing
that
aspect
of
BC
p101
right
and
I,
actually
don't
care
very
much
about
the
formal
structure
in
the
end.
As
long
as
we
actually
get
to
that
position,
you
know
where
the
oversight
is
being
performed
as
oversight
and
the
work
is
being
performed
as
work
and
the
two
don't
get
melted
and
mixed
up
in
the
way
they
seem
to
be
at
the
moment.
F
W
So
Lucy,
Lynch
and
I
that
my
feedback
didn't
get
incorporated
because
I
feel
like
the
weakest
parts
of
this
proposal,
are
the
oversight,
portion
and
professionalization
portion
around
staff
and
the
cultural
effects
of
that,
both
of
which
I
think
are
not
very
clearly
understood
and
I.
Think
reflecting
on
what
both
Wendy
and
Glen
said.
W
You
need
to
keep
in
mind
that
every
time
you
do
that
you
change
the
culture
and
you
change
if
you,
as
those
governance
structures,
come
in
the
descriptions
of
boards
and
advisory
boards
and
whatever
that
can
be
distancing
and
professionalization
of
staff.
If
it
moves
too
quickly
and
delegation
of
authority,
moves
too
quickly
can
be
distancing
as
well
for
a
community.
That's
been
very
hands-on
in
how
they
manage
themselves
so
I'm
concerned
about
those
aspects
of
the
proposals.
Overall
I
think
the
first
two
models
can
work.
N
Otherwise
there
wouldn't
be
analogies,
there'd
be
I,
did
they'd
be
identities
and
the
the
the
thing
about
the
the
line
of
business
model
versus
the
subsidiary
model
is
that
in
the
line
of
business
right,
all
of
the
people
who
are
in
the
line
of
business
formally
are
employed
by
the
larger
corporation
I'm
part
of
a
line
of
business.
But
our
Oracle
pays.
N
My
pays
me
and
I
have
a
I
have
a
legal
responsibility
to
Oracle
and
the
problem
with
our
current
line
of
business
approach
to
this
or
or
and
I
asked
a
double
plus
a
line
of
business
approach
is
that
we
don't
actually
have
a
mechanism
by
which
we
make
that
kind
of
relationship.
Now,
maybe
we
could
invent
one
and
then,
and
then
I
asked
A+
bus
would
be
a
way
to
do
that.
N
But
but
at
the
moment
some
of
the
problems
that
Leslie
had
in
her
in
in
the
in
the
chart-
that's
up
here
are
are
literally
just
legal
problems
that
you
can't
get
around,
because
we
don't
have
this
kind
of
legal
relationship
between
the
IOC
and
the
organization
of
which
of
which
it
is
a
part.
You're
quite
correct
about
that
right.
N
The
ITF
is
part
of
a
vise
on,
but
we
don't
have
the
we
don't
have
the
legal,
a
home
in
the
sense
that
the
IOC
members
are
not
part
of
the
legal
organization,
because
you
know
this,
this
activity
isn't
isn't
sort
of
legally
constituted,
and
so,
if
we
change
that
sort
of
relationship,
then
the
members
of
of
the
oversight
board
or
whatever
then
have
this.
This
legal
relationship
to
the
organization,
because
their
board
members
and
I
think
that
that
that
fact
I
mean.
Maybe
that's
too
scary.
You
know
it's
got
these.
N
N
To
you
know
in
thinking
about
arm
about
whether
you
know
growing
up
by
just
becoming
a
more
partnership
like
activity
of
this
larger
organization
is,
is
something
that
that
actually
meets
the
needs
that
we
have
and
I
think
that
this
list
of
issues
is
an
example
of
where
some
of
those
are
just
never
going
to
be
possible.
Unless
you
set
up
some
legal
distinctions
that
we
don't
currently
have.
L
Thank
You
Tobias
condom
I
just
wanted
to
add
some
context
to
some
of
the
things
that
I
heard
before,
because
the
term
wart
kind
of
implies
that
the
other
person
tells
you
what
to
do
in
some
cases
and
I
didn't
feel
very
comfortable
with
that
word
because
to
share
some
of
my
experiences
in
the
I/os
II
I
had
at
no
point
the
perception
that
the
I
that
I
suck
would
tell
the
ioc
what
to
do.
In
fact,
it
was
always
the
other
way
around.
It
was
always
I
use.
L
He
says
this
and
I
soak
always
executed
on
this.
There
was
no
discussion
about
this
and
in
fact
at
least
that's
my
experience
as
for
my
I
use,
he
chair
and
as
like,
like
now
three
and
a
half
years
member,
so
this
term
wart
I
think
is
a
little
bit
misleading
and
if
you
have
the
feeling
that
I
soaked
is
sitting
somewhere
in
the
background
controlling
the
ioc,
that
is
not
my
expect
and
not
my
experience
at
all
in.
I
think
it
leads
a
little
bit
to
what
Brian
said.
L
Maybe
there
is
a
lack
on
our
side
actually
to
step
up
and
fill
the
at
gap.
That
I
SOG
is
basically
always
accepting
what
the
IOC
is
saying,
but
the
IOC
may
not
fulfill
all
the
oversight.
It
should,
for
example,
when
it
comes
to
the
money
like
it's
very
easy
for
us,
because
I
soap
always
fills
the
gap.
So
budget
control
is
maybe
not
such
an
intrinsic
meat
or
burning
burning
problem.
L
X
Hi
Bob
Hin
didn't
so.
First
of
all
for
background,
I've
been
the
chair
of
the
IOC
and
I've
been
chair
of
the
AIESEC
board,
not
at
the
same
time.
Thankfully
so
I've
seen
I
have
some
view
of
this
from
both
sides.
If
we
can
describe
it
that
way
and
I
mean
I
still
characterize
the
relationship
between
ice
hockey
and
the
ITF
is
sort
of
a
win-win
for
both
organizations.
X
We
both
get
a
lot
out
of
it,
but
I
can
certainly
see
that
the
that
there
are
a
number
of
tensions
and
things
that
need
to
be
much
the
relationship.
The
interface
needs
to
be
a
lot
clearer
defined
because
there's
obviously
been
friction
in
you
know
recent
times
on
the
spectrum
of
you
know
where
we
are
now
I
asked,
a-plus-plus,
subsidiary
or
independent
Eileen.
X
Well,
I,
don't
think
independent
is
I,
don't
see
how
we
get
there
and
I
think
as
long
as
we're
largely
dependent
on
I
sock
for
revenue.
Well,
you
you're
not
really
independent
anyway,
because
if
ice
are
no
longer
has
money
to
support
the
ITF,
then
you
know
it's
like
being
independent.
Is
isn't
such
a
good
thing,
so
I
I
don't
see
that
as
a
practical
choice,
I
think
we
we're
probably
looking
for
something
between
is
a
plus
plus
and
what's
called
subsidiary,
but
I
don't
think
it's
actually
I
mean
I.
X
X
Unless
on
the
technical
work
and
because
you
I,
don't
think
you
can
have
it
both
ways,
I
don't
think
you
can
have
staff
who
have
the
same
viewpoints
as
the
people
who
are
involved
in
the
actual
technical
work.
I
mean
I.
Think
that's
some
of
the
tension
when
I
sock
was
trying
to
do
fundraising
because
they
can't
speak
in
the
same
way
that
you
know
the
the
leaders
of
you
know.
Our
leadership
groups
can
and
so
I.
You
know
I
think
we
have
this
desire
to
somehow
have
that.
X
Have
somebody
else
do
that,
but
have
it
be
perfect
and
I?
Don't
think
we
got
that
so
again,
so
Eileen,
some,
you
know,
sort
of
think
we
should
try
to
do
as
little
as
possible
to
significantly
improve
the
relationship.
I'm,
not
quite
sure.
If
that
requires
you
know
a
separate
organization
or
can
be
done
in
the
ice
ox
structure
but
I
think
that's
the
space.
We
should
be
spending
time
to
figure
out.
T
T
If,
if
Kathy
has
an
issue
with
signing
contracts
that
that
we
create
if
I
socks,
IT
has
issues
with
the
difference
in
IT
arrangements,
if
we
have
a
problem
with
I
sock
formally
being
the
ones
to
hire
the
IAD,
even
though
we
make
the
decision
and
do
the
performance
evaluations,
let's
do
whatever
we
need
to
do
to
fix
those.
But
let's
minimize
the
separation
from
Isaac
bob
called
it
a
win-win.
T
More
specifically
I
saw
gives
us
connection
to
development
and
outreach
and
governance,
and
that
sort
of
thing
we
give
aisaka
better
connection
to
the
technical
world
and
I
think
that
benefits
both
organizations.
So
I
lean
more
toward
the
is
a
plus,
plus,
possibly
somewhere
in
between
that
and
and
the
next
version,
and
way
away
from
complete
separation.
F
Can
you
organize
that
in
the
sort
of
most
efficient
sense
so
that
you
have?
You
know
the
need
to
do
less
coordination?
And
you
have
it?
You
know
closer
to
team
and
and
then
then
you
execute
more
efficiently
and
of
course,
that
doesn't
mean
that
you
have
to
spend
some
time
doing
that
reorg
or
you
live.
You
know,
constraints
that
are
in
the
current
model
and
that's
that's
the
trade-off
and
I,
at
least
from
my
perspective,
some
reorg,
some
some
rethinking
of
how
these
pieces
fit
together
is
useful.
F
Because
then,
the
long-term
benefit
is
that
you
actually
get
things
running
more
smoothly,
because
you
have
less
parties
to
negotiate
the
particular
contract,
for
instance,
so
before
I
was
talking
about
Isaac's
expectations
on
this
and
and
I
I
had
made
a
comment
on
the
list,
but
I'll
make
it
here
again
and
I
think
Bob
phrase
it
very
well
as
a
win-win
scenario
or
situation
or
relationship.
F
F
But
if
the
idea
community
values
that
type
of
technical
work,
that
meant
very
often
involves
the
promotion
of
of
you
know,
IETF
technologies
I
think
it's
important
that
the
connection
is
is
clear
somehow
so
in
in
both
direction
and
then
a
second
comment
and
related
to
that
which
is
about
funding.
I
mean
I've
made
this
comment
in
the
sponsorship
committee,
but
we're
talking
about
funny
here
for,
like
you
know,
sir
time
so
I'll
make
it
here
as
well.
F
Some
of
the
problems
that
you
have
with
the
channeling
of
money
to
the
idea
that
people
complain
about
like
you
know
they
are
members
of
I
said,
but
they
really
want
to
support
the
IDF.
It's
not
going
away.
Regardless
of
what
you
know
structure
you
take
because
I'm
Toby
has
mentioned
that
as
well.
I
have
mentioned
that
many
times.
I
think
you
know
all
the
global
hosts
which
is
like
when,
when
I
actually
became
the
the
ISO
chair
and
I
want
to
talk
to
two
people
that
wanted
to
get
money.
F
Their
answer
was
like,
but
if
I
give
money
to
the
IDF
at
the
end
of
the
day,
really
I'm
giving
money
to
the
other
I
sock,
you
know
activities
because
I
sake
is
gonna
pay
whatever
the
ITF
wants.
So
then
is
is
really.
It
makes
no
difference
if
I
get
1
million
here
or
not
that's
something
that
is
not
fair,
actually,
but
just
something
that
you
know
something
positive
for
the
IDF.
May
become
actually
something
negative,
because
some
sponsors
are
not
willing
to
give
money
to
the
idea.
F
H
U
Agree
on
that
so
Kathy
Brown
I
thought
I'd,
listened
I,
guess
about
three
of
these
meetings
now
and
I.
Think
it's
really
been
enormous
ly
how
healthy
very
healthy
I
want
to
just
echo
with
I.
Think
some
of
you
said
that
it
no
way
did
I
ever
understand
or
I
hope.
Any
of
us
ever
act
that
we're
some
at
the
IETF
is
award
of
I
suck.
Indeed,
it's
always
been
a
notion
of
a
partnership
and
I.
U
There
is
a
governance
issue,
that's
a
legal
issue
and
it's
the
one
that
when
people
zones
Kathy
about
signing
the
contract,
it's
not
about
Kathy
signing
the
contract.
I
can
sign
the
contract.
The
problem
is
that
Isaac
has
a
legal
responsibility
in
a
fiduciary
duty
for
a
lot
of
legal
matters
that
are
actually
of
the
nature
of
the
IETF,
and
so,
as
the
the
chief
executive
officer
of
Isaac,
I
worry
I'm
supposed
to
worry
about
that.
It's
what
you
pay
me
to
do
you
know.
U
Is
there
an
issue
that
we
want
to
make
sure
that
the
clarity
as
to
who
is
responsible
for
what
gets
sorted
and
the
way
we
are
set
up
now
I
suck?
He
is
responsible,
legally
responsible,
legally
liable
for
many
things
that
in
fact,
second
point
of
governance.
We
have
little
or
no
control
over.
Nor
do
we
exercise
it.
So
Isaac
has
a
whole
list
of
policies.
Personnel
policies
are
one
of
them.
Privacy
policies
are
another
whether
you
can
walk
across
the
border,
with
your
with
your
laptop
full
of
I
sock
data.
U
Is
another
I
could
list
these
things
for
you
that
our
policies
that
do
not
apply
to
you
or
don't
seem
to
apply
to
you,
because
that's
not
the
way
we
operate,
but
one
it's
the
lack
of
clarity
as
to
how
how
that
should
operate.
So
there's
kind
of
this
governance
issue,
then
there's
just
a
plain
operational
issue
which
way
causes
more
in
efficiencies
I'm
a
little
bit
here
with
yari
I'm,
not
sure
the
way
we
do
it
causes
more
inefficiencies
than
if
we
if
it
was
a
simpler
structure.
U
It
is
very
important
to
I
socks
that
we
are
the
home
of
the
IETF
when
I
explained
that
to
be
I
was
just
down
there
playing
with
a
fellow
saying:
why
are
you
coming
to
Singapore
well
I'm,
going
to
the
ITF
meet?
Well?
Who
are
they
to
you?
Oh
one,
here
it's
very
cool
here's.
What
happens
here?
Uh-Oh
ipv6,
we're
running
out
of
numbers,
that's
something
you
care
about!
Oh
yeah,
I'm
gonna
have
dinner
with
the
guy,
who
was
on
the
team
that
you
know
figured
out
the
code.
U
This
is
part
of
our
DNA
as
well.
So
there's.
G
U
If,
if
I'm
now,
I'm
not
sure
because
we
haven't
gone
this
far
to
look
at
it
does
of
a
subsidiary
or
the
language
used
here
and
a
501
C
3,
for
instance,
supporting
organization
give
you
or
these
other
organization
the
ability
to
set
up
its
own
policies,
I
believe
the
answer
is
yes,
we
have
to
sort
this,
but
I
believe
the
answer
is
yes.
That
means
it's.
Okay.
If
I
sock
wants
to
have
this
set
of
thing-
and
you
want
to
have
this-
we
do
we
don't
have
a
problem,
and
it's
done.
U
U
Hate
that
but
I
do
believe
that
your
landing
is
somewhere
between
this
plus
plus
and
the
subsidiary
and
I'm
with
John
on
this,
why
don't
we
sit
down
and
figure
it
out?
Does
it
give
us?
Does
it
help
solve
the
problem
or
not,
and
if
it
solves
the
problem
at
what
cost
would
it
be
to
do
that
and
then
can
we
work
out
the
money
issues
so
that
all
becomes
kind
of
beside
the
point?
That's
kind
of
the
way
I'm
looking
at
it?
Okay,.
B
R
We've
always
said
see,
we
said
subsidiary
a
bunch
and
it's
always
confusing
me
I,
think
the
correct
term
is
supporting
organization
and
you
can
go
to
the
IRS
and
read
supporting
organization
requirements
and
types.
There's
three
types,
so
one
is
there's
direct.
Essentially
direct
control
of
the
board
of
one
sits
on
the
other,
there's
a
second
which
I
camera
with
difference.
The
second
one
is
like
essentially
kind
of
separate,
but
you
still
have
to
have
some
agreements,
so
you
can
do
all
of
those
things
at
some
point.
R
P
So
I,
except
for
my
sort
of
earlier
hat
thing,
I'm
mostly
sitting
and
listening
I
mean
so
you
know,
I've
been
I've,
been
here
a
long
time
now,
both
in
this
room
and
ITF
and
and
I've
seen
a
lot
of
beauty
contests
and
and
I
sort
of
expected.
P
We
were
to
get
in
here
and,
like
you
know,
like
hum
I'm
like
a
B
or
C,
and
we
can
still
do
that
if
you
were
like
really
want
to,
but
like
well
I've
heard
a
bunch
of
people
say
is
that
you
know
these
are
not
like
sharp
things
and
in
fact
it's
not
entirely
clear.
What
associate
actually
is
and
much
options,
many
some
lawyers
and
that
but
I
also
people
who
are
generally
think
that
likes
and
I
know
not.
P
Everybody
thinks
this,
but
that
some
some
things
are
the
locus
of
like
some
set
of
Independence,
with
some
careful
agreements
between
that
that
thing,
which
probably
has
some
legal
structure
and
I
sock
or
good
things,
and
on
serb
rather
I
mean
and
I
I
liked
what
Kathy
just
said
about
like.
P
Maybe
we
can
get
some
people
in
a
room
and
I
should
I
hammer
out
exactly
what
works
best
for
their
two
organizations
and
like
so
rather
than
sort
of
like
you
know,
try
to
like
hum
on
the
a
B
or
C,
and
you
know
then
have
like
that
group
of
marching
orders
to
try
to
make
a
B
or
C
I.
Wonder
if
we
have
like
enough.
If
we
III
don't
premise
Ryan
at
the
phrases,
maybe
John
Kent
is
gonna.
P
An
individual
norm,
I
and
I
respect
anything
I,
guess
the
reason
I
suggest.
That
is
because
you
know
otherwise
we're
gonna
do
is
we're
gonna
basically
say
well,
you
have
some
marching
orders
and
your
stuff
to
come
back
anyway,
and
so,
given
that
I
think
where
people
are
mostly
converging
on
something
like
we
feel
comfortable
with
that
cut,
we'd
like
coming
on
that,
rather
than
trying
to
like
do
a
beauty,
Coty's
or
resolve
things,
I.
W
Lynch
so
I
I'm,
fine
with
that
as
a
solution
to
a
part
of
the
problem
set
that
you're
working
on
I,
don't
think
that
solves
the
overloading
issue
on
internal
leadership
and
the
structure
of
the
of
the
IAO
C
and
I.
Don't
think
that
solves
the
professionalization
and
staffing
and
cultural
problem.
So
taking
that
as
an
element
to
solve
the
partnership
problem
sounds
great,
but
it's
only
a
piece
of
the
problem.
G
Yeah,
so
on
that
point,
actually
that's
what
I've
been
sitting
there
thinking
about
most
of
the
time,
because
there's
a
bit
of
a
chicken
and
egg
here,
that's
how
I
feel
about
it,
which
is
to
say
there
are
some
things
that
you
can
do
under
one
or
two
of
these
options
that
you
can't
do
under
other
ones.
Even
from
a
process
perspective.
If
we
are
going
to
you
know,
add
some
staff
or
you
know,
create
a
department
within
I
sock.
There's
like
a
different
set
of
lawyers.
G
You,
don't
you
don't
need
nonprofit,
incorporation
lawyers,
if
that's
what
you're
going
to
do
so
I
feel
like,
although
there
does
seem
to
be
a
lot
gelling
in
this
room,
I
would
like
to
take
a
few
hums
about
the
options.
I
was
presented
in
the
in
the
draft
to
try
and
get
a
sense
of
what
what
are
the
right
next
steps
from
a
process
perspective.
How
do
we
shape
the
this
teamwork
that
we're
going
to
go
off
and
do?
How
do
we
shape
the
work
that
we're
going
to
go
off
and
do
in
the
IETF?
G
If
we
can
get
a
little
bit
of
clarity
about
that
today,
from
based
off
of
these
homes,
then
we
can
try
to
I'm
committing
to
try
to
draft
a
working
group
charter
that
reflects
that
sense.
In
terms
of
the
scoping
of
what
documents,
what
IETF
documents
will
need
to
be
updated
in
order
to
carry
us
forward
in
that
direction?
G
And
then,
in
parallel
with
that
start
this
this,
you
know,
joint
work
between
the
I
saw
board
and
some
some
set
of
the
IETF
leadership
or
a
community
to
start
working
through
some
of
the
details
and
basically
have
a
conversation
between
those
two
tracks
until
we
feel
like
the
documents
in
the
IETF
reflect
the
kind
of
more
legal
work
that
that
would
need
to
be
done
and
by
the
team
and
vice
versa
and
we're
all
in
sync.
So
that's
kind
of
the
process
that
I'm
envisioning
going
forward.
It's
a
bit
of
a
novel
thing.
G
Also
stand
up
this
other
thing,
but
it
sounds
like
there's
there's
support
in
the
room
for
for
having
something
along
those
lines.
So
with
that
said
about
the
process,
we
need
some
direction
to
figure
out.
Where
are
we
going
to
take
that
process
so
next
slide,
please
so
I
think
just
the
first
question
you
know
in
the
in
the
last
session
in
Prague,
I
think
some
people
felt
like
we
hadn't,
really
fleshed
out
some
of
this
discussion
enough.
We
didn't
understand
the
problem
well
enough
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
G
G
If
you
don't
so,
if
you
feel
like
you,
have
enough
information
to
express
a
general
preference
about
what
you
think
is
the
best
possible
path
forward
for
is
a
2.0,
please
hum
now,
and
if
you
feel
that
you
do
not
enough
information
to
express
a
general
preference
about
what
you
think
is
the
best
path
forward
for
I.
Ask
that
you
do
please
hum
now.
G
G
So
let's
proceed
to
the
next
one
so
for
questions
here,
reflective
again
of
the
options
as
they
were
laid
on
the
draft
acknowledging
that
you
know
all
this
discussion
we've
had
that
these
are
really
kind
of
points
along
the
spectrum.
They
don't
do
you
market
anything
very,
very
specific
right
now,
but
you
get
a
general
sense
of
what
the
differences
are
between
them.
So
I'd
like
to
understand.
C
G
G
No,
can
you
can
you
stay
there
for
a
second
sorry?
Just
just
so,
can
we
go
back
to?
Can
we
just
go
back
to
2,
so
we
can
reflect
what
happened
in
the
hum
and
then
we'll
come
back
to
Lucy,
okay,
so
so
what
I
heard
I
heard,
probably
the
loudest
hum
for
for
B,
but
a
significant
portion
of
the
room
supporting
a
no
support
at
all
for
C
and
in
jabber.
Okay,
thank
you
and
and.
G
W
Understand
closer
to
the
my
from
the
discussion
in
the
room
today,
I
believe
that
there
is
greater
clarity
on
how
we
want
to
move
forward
with
negotiating
the
ongoing
partnership
with
I
suck,
but
that's
only
one
component
of
I
asseh
2.0
and
they
includes
professionalisation.
It
includes
changes
in
staffing
and
governance.
There
were
a
lot
of
other
things
in
there
that
didn't
get
substantive
discussion
and
I.
Don't
think
we
have
enough
information
to
move
forward
with
a
direction
on
AI
asset
2.0
altogether.
I
think
we
have
enough
information
to
move
forward
on
Rena
ago.
Q
This
is
Pete
the
problem
I
had
going
through
this
and
trying
to
pick
one
or
hum
it
seems
to
me.
There
are
specific
issues
that
I
care
about
here,
like
Kathy,
was
talking
about
the
legal
structure,
making
it
impossible
to
do
certain
things
right
that
that
you
know
it
because
of
her
fiduciary
responsibilities
because
of
I
Sox
board
members
fiduciary
responsibilities,
they
have
to
do
it
a
certain
way
if
we
pick
one
or
the
other.
Q
So,
for
instance,
if
we
could
come
up
with
some
legal
structure,
some
way
to
have
ia
OC
have
direct
employment
control
over
the
IAD
and
still
be
in
a
I'd,
be
okay
with
a,
but
the
sound
of
what
I
was
hearing
was
that's
not
literally
legally
possible
and
in
which
case
I'm,
either
for
B
or
for
C
and
more
likely
for
B
I.
It
seems
to
me
that
we've
got
more
worried
about
what
we
want
the
results
to
be
than
the
particular
structure
we
choose.
B
Q
G
G
Q
Think
so
I
I
would
I
would
want
an
answer
to
a
series
of
legal
questions
before
I
could
tell
you
what
I
want
the
outcome
to
look
like?
Okay,
I,
don't
know
if
that
requires,
like
lots
of
background
work
between
the
I,
saw,
Gordon
IETF
leadership,
or
that
just
requires
a
laying
out
of
some
legal
principles
and
some
structures
that
work
and
don't
work
for
certain
scenarios
and
then
do
that
as
part
of
the
chartering
process.
That
might
be
okay,.
H
Leslie
Nagle
I
I,
don't
want
us
to
have
to
prove
the
right
path
for
an
outcome
before
we
can
take
step
forward,
but
repeating
something
I
said
earlier:
I
think
that
I'm
hearing
an
important
part
of
the
next
step
is
to
understand
better
to
collect
requirements
from
the
I
sock
perspective
before
we
can
even
make
a
proposal
for
what's
feasible
going
forward.
So
at
this
point
in
time,
I
don't
think
we
should
rathole
terribly
on
whether
its
2a
or
2b
going
forward.
I
think
that
we
can
collect
from
this
session.
H
You
know
a
deeper
sense
of
what
people
feel
about
the
relationship
and
then
go
and
collect
some
more
requirements
before
we
come
back
and
try
to
figure
out
which
way
we're
going
I
think
that's
what
we
have
to
do.
I,
don't
think
we
can
discuss
it
further
than
that
with
the
data
that
we
have
in
the
room
today
and
and
I.
Think
in
part
what
I
hear
and
what
Lucy
is
saying
is
that
this
may
be
necessary.
It's
not
sufficient.
H
G
Speak
to
but
or
at
least
respond
to
is,
is
my
understanding
of
of
the
process
that
is
behind
that
which,
again,
is
you
know
some
some
small
number
of
people
in
the
IETF
leadership
going
off
and
working
with
aisaka
and
potentially
with
legal
teams
to
try
and
and
flesh
those
out.
It
is
not
chartering
a
working
group
that
will
be
sometime
in
the
future
after
after
that,
initial
piece
of
work
gets
done.
Yes,
okay,
if,
if
other
people
have
opinions
about
that
in
the
queue
that
would
be
helpful
to
understand,
I,
don't.
K
S
Steven
Ferrell,
so
I
got
to
kind
of
agree
with
Lucy
I
think
you
know
what
I
think
the
sense
of
today
that
we're
somewhere
between
a
and
B
is
entirely
reasonable
and
figuring
out.
The
consequences
with
which
lawyers
and
so
on
is
also
reasonable.
There's
a
bunch
of
things
to
do
with
the
home
I
as
a
as
a
2.0.
S
G
What
I,
what
I
was
saying
was
that
I
actually
think
these
things
are
intimately
related,
so
I
guess
I
just
disagree
with
Lucy
I.
Think
I
think
you
know
essentially
asking
the
current
NomCom
structure
or
the
you
know.
The
current
way
that
we
appoint
the
IOC
to
just
like
have
a
different
role.
Visa
vie,
a
larger
set
of
people
who
work
for
I
sock
in
a
slightly
different
capacity,
is
like
those
things,
are
very
much
bound
up
right.
G
S
Just
for
information,
I
still
don't
not
sure
I
agree
because
I
think
there's
a
whole
bunch
of
the
set
of
problems
that
we
covered
earlier
that
well
you
can't
finalize
them.
You
can
still
do
it
with
some
work
on
things
like
improving
transparency
or
figuring
out.
You
know
roughly
how
many
people
might
be
needed
for
to
professionalize,
so
I
think
there's
a
bunch
of
things
that
could
be
progressed
while
also
progressing
this
kind
of
organizational
and
governance
issue.
J
Okay,
it's
already
speaking
and
astonishingly,
I
came
up
to
talk
to
the
point
you
later
asked
us
to
address
when
we
were
high
and
that
that's
on
the
question
of
how
the
charters,
work
and
I
I
strongly
believe
that
we
should
not
wait
until
we've
gotten
a
huge
way
down
any
particular
road
with
the
right
set
of
lawyers
to
start
the
chartering
process,
because
I
believe
the
chartering
process
in
an
important
part
of
getting
buy-in
from
the
larger
community.
That
didn't
make
time
for
this
meeting
in
this
room.
J
To
agree
with
this
that
this
is
something
that
we're
going
to
move
forward
with
and
I
think
that
we
don't
want
to
wait
to
put
that
before
them.
Until
we
have
documents
in
last
call
that
we
do
that
through
the
mechanism
of
chartering
a
a
way
forward
and
I
think
that
that
means
that,
right
now,
that
charter
would
say
we're
going
to
explore
something
between
2a
and
2b.
J
Probably
that
for
the
purposes
of
a
charter,
I
would
write
it
as
to
be
and
I
sock
supporting
organization
and
then
use
that
chartering
to
get
further
input
from
the
community
and
I.
Think
yeah,
you
probably
do
need
to
talk
to
a
lawyer
first
to
make
sure
that
you
you're
using
the
right
language
when
you
say
I,
suck
supporting
organization
versus
subsidiary
versus
something
else,
and
and
thank
you
for
the
people
in
the
chatting
room
who
put
various
tax
code
implications
in
there
for
me
to
read
it
made
my
head
hurt.
J
P
Guess
I
don't
have
a
strong
feeling
about
whether
we
should
turn
our
to
later,
but
I
did
want
to
sort
of
second,
what
Harold
said:
I,
don't
I
don't
want
to
see
like
I
just
I,
just
spent
like,
like
nine
months
of
my
life,
doing
this
and
like
coming
back
with
the
suite
options
and
I,
don't
want
to
be
like
six
months
in
have
like
oh
here's.
P
Another
suite
of
options
which,
like
has
to
select
like
I,
think
we
heard
like
a
general
direction
that,
like
you
know,
we
should
be
going
in
and
we
should
be
turnery
triggering
a
set
of
people
to
like
negotiate
in
that
direction,
not
to
come
back
for
like
a
whole
array
of
things.
We
Jennifer
on
a
beauty
contest
between
so
I
think
why
I
liked
what
you
said
at
the
beginning,
I
didn't
like
quite
wait,
but
so
much
what
you
said,
wounded
Chicago
this
week,
I
think
was
just
what
we
should
be
like.
R
Shawn
Turner
I
think
these
homes
were
incredibly
helpful
because,
like
Harold
said
like
it's
between
2a
and
2b,
and
that's
great,
that's
not
complicated
too
much
I
think
we
can
move
forward.
We
can
do
things
in
parallel.
We
can
make
sure
that
we
cover
all
three
of
the
things
that
we
see
talked
about.
Let's.
G
R
We
need
to
know
the
lawyer
for
the
tax
thing.
We
got
that
guy
I
called
him
on
the
carpet,
put
him
on
the
phone
I'm
like
if
we
go
to
court.
Let
me
see
your
face
because
I'm
gonna
point
at
you
those
kind
of
things
that
we
can
walk
work
through
all
that
stuff.
It's
fairly
quick
I,
think
that
we
could
get
the
small
set
of
leadership,
skill
people
in
the
room,
many
of
the
live
in
Washington
DC.
We
could
do
it
in
an
afternoon.
Probably
I
go
through
some
of
this
stuff.
R
I,
don't
think
it's
terribly
that
hard
that
we
could
get
together
and
flush
a
possible
way
for
between
2a
and
2b
and
figuring
out
what
you
know
the
from
the
ITF
perspective
and
from
the
I
Pratap
I
socked
perspective
like
what
the
kind
of
rough
points
are
I
think
we
can
do
that
I,
don't
think
we
need
to
take
three
years
to
do
this
because
it's
gonna
suck
the
life
out
of
many
of
us.
Thank
you.
S
Yanis
women
and
yeah
first
of
all,
I
want
to
thank
you
all
so
that
we've
taken
away
that
you
see
now
and
we
have
a
little
bit
more
clearer
path
forward.
But
what
I
would
actually
say
it's
a
little
bit
different
than
some
other
people
have
said
so,
I
wouldn't
know
what
I
would
want
to
do
is
basically
to
charter
and
working
group
and
work
on
the
governance
model.
S
I
think
that
from
the
governance
model,
plus
some
requirements
that
we've
heard
from
Kathy,
or
maybe
that
can
be
written
down,
it's
more
kind
of
like
official
thing
or
more
structured
thing.
We
can
figure
out
which
one
is
better
to
A
to
B.
We
can
then
ask
the
lawyers
to
say
that
this
is
what
we
want,
go,
implement
it
and
propose
which
one
is
better
or
what
something
in
between
those.
There
are
two
ways
of
using
lawyers.
One
is
that
we
can
go
to
lawyers
and
say
there's
a
bunch
of
money.
S
Why
don't
you
propose
us
a
structure?
We
don't
really
know
what
we
want,
but
why
don't
you
propose
us
a
structure?
That's
one
way
and
they
will
propose
a
substructure
and
it
might
be
good
other
way
is
saying
we
have
this
model.
Why
don't
you
implement
that
us
for
us
and
I
believe
in
the
latter
model?
More
and
I
think
that
would
need
of
basically
having
the
governance
model
written
down
before
we
go
for
a
legal
advice?
Can.
S
I
mean
like,
and
if
you
say
basically
that
you
need
an
organ
say,
you
need
an
oversight
organization
that
has
the
possibility
to
directly
direct
the
staff,
give
it
direction
of
iron
hire.
That
person
has
the
possibility
to
run
Sariah.
Has
the
possibility?
Has
some
budget
has
the
possibility
to
control
that
within
that
budget
directly?
Has
a
possibility
to
do
you,
contracts
in
way
or
form
or
another?
S
That
is
a
governance
model,
for
instance,
and
then
they
kind
of
like
how
to
implement
that.
Well,
it
might
be
a
corporate
board,
it
might
be,
or
so
often
subsidiary
or
support
organization
or
affiliate
whatever
you
want
to
call
it
or
whatever
is
the
right
way
of
calling
it
or
it
might
be
something
else
the.
But
the
thing
is
the
important
thing
is:
what
do
we
want?
This
organ
is:
what
is
the
governance
model?
S
What
do
we
want
it
to
do,
and
then
we
can
implement
it
legally
and
it's
most
probably
something
between
a
a
and
B
and
then
comes
the
kind
of
like
requirement
in
that
Kathy
says
like
well:
Isaac
doesn't
want
to
have
any
fiduciary
responsibilities
of
these
contracts,
so
well,
okay,
that
puts
it
into
B,
for
instance,
but
selecting
that
beforehand
without
actually
knowing
that
what
are
their
requirements,
might've
might
or
might
not
give
the
right
answer,
but
I
think
it's
more
random.
What
the
answer
would
be.
R
So,
to
follow
up
on
that
a
little
bit
Ron
Turner
I,
agree
that
giving
a
bucket
of
money
to
a
bunch
of
lawyers
results
in
that
bucket
of
money
getting
spent.
We
don't
want
to
do
that.
I,
like
the
idea
of
writing
down.
In
our
words,
what
it
is,
and
then
the
lawyers
go
off
and
say
great,
because
there's
a
the
IRS
what's
going
to
happen
is
they're
gonna
say
if
you
want
to
be
in
to
be
where
your
supporting
organization
or
one
of
these
three
things
there
are
tests.
R
So
whatever
words
we
use
the
art,
the
the
lawyers
that
we're
gonna
hire
are
gonna,
be
like.
Yes,
you
meet
all
of
the
three
tests.
The
two
tests
in
the
first
two
cases
and
there's
three
tests
in
the
third
case,
and
that's
gonna
be
okay
and
whatever
words
we
come
up
are
gonna
get
translated
into.
You
know
tax
legalese
and
we
can
go
there,
and
if
we
can't
meet
the
tests,
then
we
can't
be
too
big.
K
F
Yeah
just
to
agree
with
Stephen
and
Ted,
and
anyone
else
that
has
spoken
about
you
know
doing
things
in
parallel.
I
think
you
are
building
momentum
within
the
community,
so
you
don't
want
to
lose
that
probably
so
I
think
charter
in
something
I'm
getting
the
community
as
a
whole,
basically
to
work
on
that
I
think
is
the
right
approach.
F
Of
course
you
mentioned
about
having
IDF
leadership
work
with
the
ISO
board.
I'm
just
I
mean
before
I
was
talking
about.
I
saw
economic
commitment
to
that.
In
addition
to
that,
we
have
a
set
of
focus
areas
for
the
board
and
supporting
the
IDF
in
in
these.
Basically
regard
is
one
of
them.
So,
if
you
need
you
know
the
trustees
to
spend
more
cycles
or
or
ISO
explorers
whatever
this
can
happen
actually
fairly
quickly.
F
So
in
that
sense,
don't
think
that
you
know
you
know
we
gonna
do
this
in
parallel
and
the
other
process
is
going
to
take
forever.
We
can
actually
expedite
that
so
I
think
we
can
I
agree
with
Sean.
We
can
actually
move
forward
quite
quickly
at.
K
A
lot
of
gem,
just
something
I've
heard
a
number
of
times-
is
something
between
2a
and
2b.
I'm,
sorry
and
2a
and
2b
are
mutually
exclusive
and
there
are
mutually
exclusive
by
the
signs
that
we
can't
change
where
engineers
will
love
to
invent
things,
but
we
have
to
stop
being
so
damn
creative
when
we're
living
in
a
context
become
change,
whether
we
have
a
subsidiary
or
we
don't.
If
you
don't,
we
can
mangle
things
around
so
that
it
looks
a
little
more
subsidiary.
K
Z
Shanlee
I
am
the
interim
AED
and
I've
been
have
the
opportunity
to
listen
to
the
community
to
see
where
you
all
stand
on
this
issue.
There's
one
thing
that
I
didn't
want
to
point
out
and
that's
the
legal
issue
when,
when
considering
moving
to
the
subsidiary
subsidiary
option-
and
that
is
that
there
are
times
when
the
organization
will
need
a
tax
ID
code-
something
as
simple
as
that
on
a
legal
side,
and
that
makes
a
big
difference
in
terms
of
being
able
to
move
forward
with
work.
Z
That
needs
to
be
done
in
a
way
that
is,
that
makes
sense
and
streamlines
processes
and
not
having
to
go
and
and
and
go
through
several
different
levels
to
get
something
done.
So
there
is
a
legal
issue
that
is
beyond
I,
think
governance
issues
most
definitely
can
be
worked
out,
but
it's
those
legal
things
that
makes
the
organization
makes
sense
as
a
subsidiary
and
as
it
grows
up
into
the
next
phase
of
ISO
2.0.
Z
G
So
I
hear
kind
of
opinions
all
over
the
place.
A
little
bit
on
on
next
steps.
I
will
say
what
I'm
inclined
to
do
is
certainly
to
kick
off
some
coordination
with
the
I
sock
board
to
understand
things
better
from
from
the
ISO
perspective,
and
you
know
kind
of
this
sort
of
superficial
understanding
of
what
the
options
are
as
Sean
kind
of
articulated
I
think
those
are
low-hanging
fruit
that
we
can.
We
can
get
going
on
right
away.
G
I
I,
you
know,
comes
from
the
school
of
thought
that
we
do
not
charter
working
groups
with
these
kind
of
broad
amorphous
charters,
and
we
don't
really
know
what
the
what
the
goal
is
or
what
we're
trying
to
solve
for
and
we're
not
really
there,
but
we're
also
not
really
at
the
place.
I.
Think,
where,
like
I,
can
cancel
my
lunch
meeting
and
go
write
a
real
focus
charter
for
what?
G
What
the
work
is
that
we're
going
to
do
in
the
IETF,
so
I'm
willing
to
kind
of
continue
processing
what
happened
today
and
and
try
to
draft
up
a
charter
that
we
can
maybe
kick
around
for
a
while
on
the
list
and
and
see
how
people
feel
about.
But
I
don't
have
a
real
crisp
sense
of
what
we're
asking
the
ietf
community
to
commit
to
right
now,
as
far
as
as
what
we
would
do
in
a
working
group.
G
A
X
B
Mean
you
know,
I
think
there
is
I,
could
see
some
value
and
performing
precisely
the
exercise
that
John
described
I.
Think
of
you
here
are
some
options.
We
think
are
attractive
right
enough
that
we
can
articulate
to
lawyers
do
will
we
meet
these
tests
with
these
options
and
I
think
the
kinds
of
things
that
we
see
and
the
design
team
document
I
think
are
actually
not
that
far
from
that,
so
I
could
kind
of
imagine
trying
to
scope
something
that
maybe
have
that
very
tactical
goal.
C
B
Next
step
we
could
say
what
we
want
to
do
is
refine
that
down
into
something,
though
at
least,
allow
those
tests
to
be
executed,
and
that
seems
like
something
the
community
does
right.
That's
not
something
about
the
lawyers
do
like.
We
need
to
figure
out
for
ourselves
what
we
think
of
the
interesting
things
to
ask
them
that
could
be
tested.