►
From YouTube: IETF101-IASA20-20180320-1330
Description
IASA20 meeting session at IETF101
2018/03/20 1330
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/proceedings/
C
C
This
is
what
we
were
talking
about
doing
today.
If
this
is
okay
with
everybody
here,
it
would
be
great
if
we
could
get
some
people
to
help
us
transcribe
this
event
for
posterity.
Is
there
anyone
here,
I
can
put
on
the
hook
to
take
notes,
a
fare
record
for
history.
That
shows
the
great
events
no
seriously.
We
need
somebody
is
there
anybody
here
who
could
do
this?
Thank
you,
Michael
and
I
believe
that
there
are
various
Jabir's
slacks
discord
servers,
possibly
by
this
point,
I'm,
really
not
even
keeping
track
anymore.
C
C
C
D
A
bunch
of
people
have
put
down
thoughts
and
so
I
tried
to
collect
them
here
with
draft
angle
in
the
to
draft
Arcos.
There
may
be
one
I'm
missing,
so
let
me
know
if
I
missed
that,
because
we
don't
want
to
have
an
incomplete
record
Alyssa
recruited,
a
design
team,
most
of
which
are
in
this
room.
Yari
leslie
Daigle
brian
habberman
is
Haberman
our
habberman
sorry
Brian
Haberman,
myself,
Jason
Livengood
and
Eric
Rescorla.
D
We
had
two
virtual
workshops
in
we
had
a
set
of
recommendations
from
the
design
team
that
we
discussed
in
Singapore
and
in
Prague
I
believe,
maybe
just
Singapore
I,
don't
remember.
But
after
Singapore
we
ruled
out
complete
independence
in
that
that
room,
no
one
had
a
real
appetite
for
that,
but
the
community
did
ask
us
to
get
additional
clarity
on
the
types
of
organizational
structures
that
were
possible
here.
D
We
did
that
with
the
Morgan
and
Louis
I
saw
tax
attorneys
and
so
that
memo
I'm
gonna
summarize
here
in
a
minute
there's
been
clarifying
questions
to
the
list.
So
we,
the
design
team-
and
you
guys
had
questions
that
we
didn't
brought
back
to
the
attorneys
and
went
through
that
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
anything
about
that.
D
Then
myself,
a
subset
of
the
design
team,
Brian
and
Jason,
tried
to
propose
a
straw
man,
so
something
we
knew
that
was
probably
not
necessarily
correct
or
something
that
would
essentially
just
provoke
discussion
and
that's
definitely
what
it's
done
and
we're
here
to
complete
that
and
face
to
face.
We
want
to
be
very
clear.
Two
goals
for
today
are
to
try
and
get
clarity
from
all
of
you
on
the
legal
structure,
the
organizational
structure
that
we
would
prefer.
Obviously
we
have
to
take
all
of
this
back
to
the
ietf
community.
D
That's
not
something
we're
going
to
skip
over
by
any
stretch
of
the
imagination.
You
do
want
to
emphasize
that
the
given,
when
I'm
about
to
show
you
the
design
team,
recommends
option
3
the
disregarded,
LLC
and
I'm
happy
to
to
talk
through
why
we
think
that
next
slide
please.
So
this
is
an
eye
chart
I'm.
Sorry,
you
can
open
the
slides
on
your
own
or
come
closer
if
you
need
to,
but
it
summarizes
the
four
or
five
page
memo
from
Morgan
Louis
that
talks
about
the
various
options
you
can
see.
D
There's
the
severe
independent
case
on
one
side,
there's
what
I
call
status
quo
which
would
on
the
on
the
list
today,
it's
not
exactly
status
quo.
It's
it's
legal!
The
the
activity
of
eye
sock
structure
is
what
we're
doing
now
and
there
are
ways
to
improve
how
things
work
now,
but
even
even
that
we
don't
think
that's
enough
as
a
design
test.
So
there's
a
variety
of
things
here,
some
of
which
are
more
interest
to
all
of
you.
D
But
the
whole
point
here
is
that
you
can
see
in
so
I'm
going
to
call
these
option,
one,
which
is
complete
independence,
that
we've
ruled
out
option
two,
which
is
the
type
one
support
organization
of
I
thought:
option
3,
which
is
the
disregarded
LLC.
The
third
fourth
column.
There
an
option
4,
which
is
activity
of
I
sock.
D
One
of
the
things
we
thought
it
was
really
important
to
get
clarity
on
is
to
what
extent
I
saw
it
specifically
might
have
control
over
board
or
whatever
that's
the
first
line
right
there
and
then
very
specifically,
you
know.
To
what
extent
can
what
we
call
the
IAO,
the
IETF
administrative
organization?
Can
what
extent
can
that
board
hire
and
fire
the
executive
director?
D
And
while
that's
definitely
in
RFC
4070
one
in
terms
of
a
statement,
the
it's
legally,
not
actually
true,
and
so
under
these
other
cases,
it's
more
it's
true,
that's
exactly
within
the
legal
ambit
of
that
body
and
then
there's
liability,
there's
a
whole
bunch
of
stuff
about
financing.
Fundraising.
The
important
thing
here
is
that
we
do
have
a
separate
ITF
bank
account
now,
but
you
cannot
write
checks
to
the
IETF
or
ITF
or
ITF
and
minute
organization.
D
D
D
Let's
talk
about
the
legal
we'll
spend
some
time
talking
about
the
legal
analysis,
I
or
others
on
the
design
team
are
happy
to
answer
questions
we're
not
lawyers.
So
this
is
not
legal
advice.
Then
we
can
go
on
to
the
the
straw
man
proposal
and
in
this
drama,
a
proposal
there's
four
slides
teed
up
for
conversation,
so
just
to
head
you
off.
D
If
you
want
to
talk
about
them,
the
Advisory
Council
proposal,
the
the
board
issues
related
to
the
board
size,
composition
of
terms
things
like
that
transparency,
which
is
an
extremely
important
issue,
and
then
the
final
thing
of
Oh
us
us,
incorporation
or
not,
right
and
so
they're.
All
those
things
we'll
talk
about
when
we
get
to
when
I
get
through
the
next
set
of
stuff,
which
is
about
the
proposed
straw.
Man,
questions
about
legal
structure.
F
D
D
Well,
we
can
come
back
to
this,
but
I
can
keep
on
going
okay,
so
the
last
slide
was
visualization
of
the
current
structure.
This
is
a
visualization
of
sort
of
the
proposed
structure.
With
the
five-member
board,
you
can
see
that's
different
than
the
IOC
we
have
now,
which
is
much
larger.
It
includes
the
IAO,
the
IETF
admin
org
there
in
the
middle
as
a
bunch
of
responsibilities
that
are
sort
of
things
that
the
IAO
C
is
doing
now.
Could
you
next
slide
and
slide.
D
I
think
way
to
go
Thanks.
This
is
just
a
diff
to
sort
of
show
you
the
overall
things
that
change
in
a
visual
format
from
one
to
the
other.
Next
slide.
Excuse
me,
okay,
so
let's
actually
get
into
it
here.
First
thing
about
transparency
is
Stephen
in
the
room
all
right.
Well,
you
asked
for
more
cowbell.
We
give
you
more
cowbell.
This
is
essentially
what
we'd
like
to
propose
is,
however,
we
instantiate
it
in
an
operating
agreement
or
charter,
or
something
like
that.
D
That
basically
says-
and
this
is
courtesy
of
Stephen
and
Randy-
and
it
needs
to
be
a
little
bit
of
tweaking
this
I
think
in
the
sense
that
you
know
whatever
doesn't
have
a
specific
justification
for
being
kept
confidential
should
be
made
public
by
default.
There
must
exist
a
public
list
of
these
things
describing
the
nature,
information
and
the
reason
for
confidentiality.
There's
some
tweaks
in
that
there's
certain
information.
D
That's
just
necessarily
always
going
to
be
confidential,
and
so
you
may
not
need
to
list
them
individually
like
personnel,
things
and
stuff
like
that,
but
definitely
itemized
elements
like
you
know,
specific
IETF,
meeting,
hotel
negotiations
or
whatever
are
things
that
we
would
list
in
that
kind
of
a
ledger
so
hopefully
know
if
anyone
has
any
objections
to
this
kind
of
default,
transparency
or
tweaks
to
this.
Let's
talk
about
that
should
I
just
do
this
one
by
one,
sir.
G
G
We
talked
about
this
one
a
lot
and
how
much
can
we
disclose
how
much
we
we
can't
we've
improved
what
we
disclosed,
but
one
of
the
things
that
other
organizations
do
is
they
fully
disclose
their
contracts?
There's
a
dollar
cost
associated
with
that,
so
the
whether
we
disclose
or
not
is
actually
a
choice
of
the
community,
but
the
community
has
to
understand
we're
gonna
pay
more
because
of
it,
because
it
weakens
our
negotiating
position.
It's
not
what's
the
fixed.
I
G
We
have
an
existence,
proof
of
I
Triple
E,
which
is
a
different
organization,
and
they,
you
know,
operate
in
much
more
predictable
and
constrained
environments.
They
don't
have
as
many
choices,
but
we
have
an
existence.
Proof
of
a
big
organization
that
publishes
all
the
contracts,
but
the
our
staff
has
told
us
there's
a
real
cost
of
okay.
D
Okay,
so
naturally
a
lot
of
people
like
Ted
and
a
few
others
mentioned
that
draft
Hall,
the
proposed
strawman
structure.
Is
you
really
got
to
decide
on
the
legal
structure
before
we
really
fleshed
this
stuff
out,
because
it
depends
really
mildly.
However,
we
thought
it
was
really
good.
You
know
we
need
to
make
every
opportunity
of
the
time
we
have
given.
You
know
Cathy's
leaving
by
the
end
of
the
year.
We
really
want
to
make
sure
this
is
well
along
its
way
soon,
so
we
decided
to
propose
a
structure.
D
That's
I
be
appointed
one
of
the
four
one
NomCom
appointed
individual
and
then
two
members
self
selected
by
the
other
three
members
of
the
board
and
the
idea
there
was
to
make
sure
that
we
had
certain
kinds
of
expertise
that
we
may
not
have
in
the
ietf
community.
So
people
who
know
something
about
nonprofit
management,
who
know
things
about
finance
and
fundraising.
K
D
L
H
L
L
Okay,
my
reading
of
the
Morgan
Lewis
memo
is
that
in
both
cases,
the
LLC
and
the
excuse
me
type
one
supporting
organization,
there's
a
single,
a
sole
member
as
the
is
the
kind
of
legal
construct
underneath
both
of
them
and
I
stock
would
be
the
sole
member
in
both
cases.
But
if
I
read
their
memo
correctly
in
the
type
one
case,
I
saw
retains
the
right
to
appoint
the
majority
of
the
board,
we're
in
the
disregarded
entity.
They
have
the
formal
right
to
appoint
the
whole
board.
L
They
have
the
right
to
delegate
the
ability
to
appoint.
They
have
the
right
to
roam
the
whole
board
and
then
they
may
have
operating
agreements
which
describe
how
they
go
about
that,
but
it
is
up
to
the
board.
We're
talking
about
the
legalities
here
right
and
the
legalities
are
all
of
the
board.
Members
are
appointed
by
the
ISAT
board
according
to
the
operating
agreements
and
whatever
other
things
that
go
on.
But
I
think
it's
important
to
to
be
clear
about
that,
because
if
it
turns
out
we're
we're
dealing
with.
L
So
I
do
want
to
be
clear
that
this
was
not
like
a
stake
in
the
ground.
That
I
was
gonna,
tie
myself
to
and
I
never
leave,
but
that
that
it
was
because
I
was
thinking
primarily
of
the
type
one
entity,
which
is
my
preference
for
some
other
reasons.
But
I
I
think
this
is
the
the
point
at
which
we've
kind
of
gotten
into
the
place
where
having
the
decision
about
what
the
entity
is
starts
to
inform
the
details
in
some
pretty
basic
ways.
Yeah.
M
Hydrolyse
jump
and
on
a
matter
of
board
size
I
would
go
strictly
for
psychology
and
disregard
almost
anything
else.
My
experience
with
boards
is
that,
and
larger
ports
tend
to
try
to
do
more.
The
chances
of
being
someone
being
really
really
wanting
to
do
more
on
the
large
board
is
very
and
there's
this
unfortunate
tendency
of
everyone
else
once
wanting
to
be
seen
as
doing
as
much
as
that
as
they
the
other
represent
this
so
keep
the
size
down.
M
D
M
M
N
O
O
I
I
think
think
seven
actually
is
actually
a
reasonably
good
number
I'm,
not
gonna
like
time
as
I
said
myself
to
a
stake
for
five
or
nine,
the
glide
I'm
glad
to
hear
Ted
isn't
totally
fixated
on
his
proposal.
Cuz
I'm,
gonna,
I'm,
gonna
bash
it
a
little
bit
which
is
I.
Think
I
mean
one
of
the
strong
opponents
of
having
some
of
the
board
itself
selected
like
I.
O
Think
if
you
look
at
this
list
and
you
look
at
this-
is
all
the
same
people
like
we
already
appoint
and
if
you
look
at
this
list
and
you
look
at
the
people,
we've
managed
to
point
fantastic.
The
light
blue
those
people
are
you
don't
see
some
serious
deficits
in
terms
of
them
like
having
the
kind
of
business
experience
that
I
think
I
think
this
is
gonna
need
and
even
the
people
that
you
know
the
people
we've
appointed
that
do
have
bruises
sprains
are
tentacle.
O
My
business
experience
opposed
to
business
people
with
his
experience
and
so
I
think
that
you
know
we
do
the
same
thing:
you're
gonna,
the
same
results
and
so
I
think
that
it's
really
important
to
structure
this.
In
a
way
that
we
get
people
who
really
do
have
the
kind
of
experience
on
a
corporate
board
that
you
need
to
run
a
corporate
board,
and
so
maybe
there
some
other
mechanism
for
doing
that
that
doesn't
involve
self-selecting
but
I.
Don't
think
that
having
the
IAB
and
the
NomCom
making
these
appointments
is
going
to
get
us.
O
I
thought
that
the
people
that
ia
be
in
an
uncommon
would
be
able
to
I
think
yeah
I
think
it's
a
matter
of
you
know
we
put
the
people
we
think
are
most
like.
When
I
am
you
know,
I'm
conduit,
they
fit
the
people,
they
think
are
the
most
of
the
business
savvy
of
you
know
of
the
people,
their
server
aware
of
and
those
you
more
business,
a
view,
people
because
they
have
oh
because
their
network
extends
further.
So,
yes,
I
think
that
way
possible.
P
Q
So
I
think
you
sort
of
kind
of
quickly
said.
Well,
you
know
the
in
the
type
one
supporting
organization
I
saw
Cortines
the
authority
to
appoint
the
majority
of
the
directors
and
then
in
the
LLC.
They
retain
the
authority
to
appoint
all
of
the
directors
and
and
the
rest
of
the
difference
is
just
in
operational
agreements
and
and
those
are
sort
of
secondary,
but
actually
minor
standing.
Q
Is
that
what
can
go
into
one
of
those
operational
agreements
and
for
the
organization
to
continue
to
retain
the
tax
status
that
it's
going
for
is
actually
legally
limited
differently
in
the
two
cases.
So,
in
the
case
of
the
LLC,
you
can
put
into
such
an
operating
agreement
that
I
sock
has
delegated
the
authority
to
some
IETF
body
or
set
of
bodies,
and
you
cannot
put
that
into
an
operating
agreement
under
the
type
one.
Q
Supporting
organization
case
this
is
actually
I
think
a
pretty
critical
difference
because,
basically,
in
the
case
of
the
LLC,
what
that
leaves
you
with
is
an
operating.
You
could
potentially
have
an
operating
agreement
where
aisaka
retains
a
sort
of
kill
switch
where
and
if
the
LLC
completely
goes
off
the
rails
and
violates
the
law
or
whatever
I
saw
it
can
rein
it
back
in.
But
you
you
can,
under
a
normal
operating
procedure,
delegate
the
authority
to
the
IETF
entity,
and
you
can't
do
that
in
the
type
1
supporting
organization
case.
Q
Wrote
it
to
the
list
I
provided
an
update
to
the
list,
yeah
yeah
I,
the
Christian
said
that
it's
on
the
IRS
website,
I'm
just
in
the
description
of
the
type
1
organization,
and
also,
if
you
look
at
the
thread
on
the
list,
I
think
it's
called
answers,
which
is
where
I
provided
the
summary
of
this.
These
conversations
with
lawyers
Christian.
D
C
R
This
seems
the
appropriate
point
to
raise
a
somewhat
different
question,
because
I
think
the
board
size
needs
to
be
a
consequence
of
what
is
it
we
want
the
board
to
do
for
us,
and
the
thing
I
am
worried
about
is
not
the
legal
structure.
Yes,
it
matters,
I
get
why
it
matters
a
lot,
but
I'm
also
quite
confident.
We
can
get
that
close
enough
to
be
workable.
I
have
observed
a
very
different
problem
in
a
number
of
other
organizations
which
and
I've
talked
to
people
who
think
about
organizations.
R
They
talk
about
it
staff
capture,
which
is
that
unless
you
have
strong
responsiveness
to
the
membership
built-in
very
well,
there
is
a
very
natural
tendency
for
the
staff
to
do
what
is
right.
Well,
yeah
there,
it's
not
a
question
of
ill-will
they're
trying
to
do
what
is
right
for
a
number
of
parameters.
R
This
devolves
into
situations
in
which,
in
one
case
I
know
of
it,
was
almost
impossible
to
fire
a
contractor
who
was
doing
one
job
because
they
had
essentially
captured
their
job
and,
in
another
case
I
know
of
where
all
of
the
publicity
putting
things
out
was
actually
at
variance
with
what
the
meant
how
the
membership
wanted
something
described.
But
it
was
great
for
getting
publicity
for
the
org.
R
Well,
that's
not
the
situation
we
want,
and
so
I'm
concerned
that,
if
the
board
isn't
big
enough
to
make
sure
isn't
responsive
enough
to
the
ITF,
so
that
gets
to
the
self-appointed
component
and
big
enough
to
exert
enough
Authority
and
has
the
right
directives
from
us
to
exert
that
we
will
fall
into
that
even
with
the
best
of
all.
This
is
not
an
insult
to
any
of
the
folks
from
I
sock
who
have
done
wonderful
things
for
us
or
from
AMS,
who
are
doing
a
great
job
of
taking
care
of
us.
T
S
It
should
be
fairly
stable,
it
should
be
people
who
you
know
have
enough
instance
have
enough
both
institutional
memory
and
institutional
respect,
to
resist
capture
and
and
have
enough
sense
to
realize
their
their
an
oversight
board.
You
know
and
if
they
have
to
meet
more
than
three
or
four
times
a
year,
just
kind
of
chat
with
the
job
of
the
staff
and
say:
okay,
you're
still
doing
your
job
and
they're
not
doing
their
job.
S
Apropos
of
Ted's
thing,
I.
Think
the
question
of
what
I
socks
nominal
control
is
is
frankly
irrelevant,
because
if
the
relationships
between
this
entity
and
I
saw
got
so
bad
that
the
question
of
who
got
to
appoint
the
members
was
a
problem.
I
sought
to
turn
off
the
money
you
know
which
would
which
would
force
things
you
know.
So.
We've
had
a
good
relationship
for
25
years.
C
D
D
We
as
an
oversight,
board
sue
splitting
the
current
ia
OSI
into
an
oversight
board
and
then
the
Advisory
Council,
which
we'll
talk
about
in
a
sec,
which
is
meant
to
sort
of
marshal
some
of
that
community
input
and
do
the
things
that
require
sort
of
more
operational
stuff
that
isn't
in
staff
roles.
I.
U
I'm
Jana,
Swindon
and
then
I,
don't
know
if
you
asked
me
but
I'm
the
first
one
in
line
here
so
I'm
going
to
answer.
But
that's
what
I
read
from
the
paper
as
well,
that
this
is
basically
split
from
oversight
board
and
that
entity
kind
of
like
in
the
IAO
see
we've
had
two
sides:
we've
had
the
kind
of
like
tribal
side
of
showing,
which
way
the
community
thinks
and
making
sure
that
is
the
direction
and
then
kind
of
over
the
oversight
of
money
and
revenue
and
basically
and
contracts
and
so
on
and
now
I.
U
What
I
understand
you
are
splitting
into
two.
So
you
have
to
also
then
make
sure
that
those
two
are
in
line
that
the
kind
of
strategy
that
the
oversight
board
creates
is
not
in
conflict
of
that.
What
the
what
actually
the
organization
needs
or
what
the
iqaf
community
needs,
and
that
is
actually
something
that
you
should
somehow
maybe
reflect
in
the
document.
You
have
said
there
that
there
is
some
high
level
kind
of
guidance
role,
but
I
think
high
level
guidance
is
actually
strategy
for
the
for
the
administrating
work.
U
So
that
means
kind
of
like
do
we
look
to
get
as
many
people
into
the
idea
of
meetings
as
possible,
or
do
we
want
one
to
get
the
technical
experts
to
come
and
talk
about
standards
that
those
might
be
two
conflicting
strategies
for
us,
but
on
the
size
of
the
board
as
well
I'm
like
I,
don't
know
five,
seven,
most
probably
irrelevant
my
starts
to
be
big.
The
selection
is
important.
Is
it
NomCom
or
do
you
self-select,
but
I
don't
know
in
which
way
that
is
important.
I
don't
know
which
one
is
better.
U
U
U
Answer
there,
the
if
you
want
we
can
view
this
as
a
community
effort,
the
anyways.
The
thing
is
that
what
you
might
want
to
think
is
really
is
the
executive
director.
Is
that
person
supposed
to
be
part
of
the
or
offer
the
board
or
not
that
changes
the
relationship
with
that
person
and
if
they
are
on
the
board
they're
more
part
of
the
board
if
they
are
not
the
relationship
that
they
are
basically
working
for
the
board
and
not
part
of
the
decision-making
of
the
strategy
is
more
clear,
I,
don't
know
which
one
you
want.
U
D
U
Doesn't
actually
matter
because
the
thing
is
that
so
I'm
the
idea
of
listen
to
the
IQ
board
as
well.
Our
CEO
is
part
of
the
board
and
we
can
still
review
their
performance.
That's
not
an
issue.
Okay!
Well,
that
it
can
be
done.
It
is
just
the
relationship
is,
is
different
if
it's
better
or
worse,
I,
don't
know,
but
it's
different.
D
U
D
D
W
D
D
X
W
Session
may
kick
them
out.
What
prompted
me
to
get
up
was
the
interchange
between
Ted
and
Ecker,
about
who
would
be
able
to
find
the
right
people
for
the
board
and
I
just
want
to
point
out
that
a
lot
of
people
misunderstand
you
do
not
have
to
be
NomCom
eligible
to
be
chosen
by
NomCom
only
to
be
a
voting
member
of
NomCom.
M
The
NomCom
process
has
a
danger
in
that.
If
one
NomCom
turns
bad
and
picks
someone
that
is
utterly
unsuitable
for
the
role
that
the
body
with
that
appointee
will
have
a
lot
have
a
problem
function
functioning
for
a
while.
The
problem
is
larger,
then
the
more
members
you
pick
from
with
von
anka,
the
NomCom
process
is
very
carefully
designed
so
that
you
can't
screw
up
everything
in
one
pass.
M
Y
M
Okay,
well
sorry,
I
was
just
thinking
member
should
the
executive
director
who
is
reviewed
by
the
board
be
a
member
of
the
board.
That
was
what
I
was
gonna,
get
and
I've
been
in
both
sides,
both
kinds
of
board,
and,
frankly,
it
doesn't
matter
any
time.
I
vote
this
down
to
a
difference
of
one
we're
in
hell
anyway,.
D
D
You
know
essentially
we're
splitting
the
ioc
into
a
board
with
fiduciary
responsibilities
and
a
bunch
of
stuff
like
that
and
a
set
of
things
that
you
know
a
an
advisory
council
that
might
be
able
to
serve
some
of
the
advisory
capacity
of
the
IOC
and
there's
some
things
we
need
to
figure
out
here.
You
know
like
what
does
it
look
like?
What's
the
responsibility
of
it,
you
know
Michael
Richardson
made
the
the
point:
yeah
hey,
can't
we
just
spin
up
working
groups
for
this
kind
of
advice,
I'm
sure
we
could
one
of
the
things
I.
O
Gege
scroll
on
me,
sir
I
think
I'm.
The
person
who
put
this
in
the
original
document
I
think
so
yeah,
those
idea
and
I
guess
I
mean
I,
I.
Guess
one
thing
I
heard
on
the
mailing
list
that
people
read
this
was
with
insulate
the
you
know:
fee
sort
of
filter
and
block
off
the
on
the
board
from
feedback.
O
So
I
was
surprised
that,
because
my
intent
was
quite
the
opposite
was
have
it
concentrate
that
feedback
and,
like
you
know,
and
BM
BM
mechanism
for
people
felt
like
the
obligation
to
it
and
some
of
the
head?
Listen
to
but
like
I
could
also
be
like
totally
wrong.
Like
I
can
say.
Is
that
the
intent
of
putting
this
on
here
was
that
not
I?
O
Think
I
speak
for
design
team
was
too
fried
a
mechanism
for
making
that
feedback
more
manifest
and
more
legible,
and
if
people
think
that
it
has
the
opposite
impact,
then
fine
we're
wrong.
We
shake
it
off
right,
so
I
think
I,
don't
think.
Like
I,
don't
think
anybody
thought
there
was
any
intention
for
to
be
intended.
H
O
I
My
name
is
Andrew
Sullivan
and,
for
my
sins,
I
know
the
IOC
chair,
but
I
I'm,
not
speaking
in
that
I'm,
not
speaking
in
that
role.
I
just
want
to
make
that
clear.
The
the
current
structure
of
the
IOC
has
this
weird
problem
that
we
expect
it
somehow
to
represent
the
community
and
then,
when
it
gets
it
wrong,
we
put
them
on
a
panel
in
front
of
the
room
and
we
yell
at
them
and
and
I.
I
My
understanding
of
this
of
this
advisory
council
is
that
it's
a
way
to
get
that
loop
sort
of
much
tighter
because
the
the
you
know
we
have
all
these
mechanisms
about.
You
know
community
feedback
and
so
on,
but
the
truth
of
the
matter
is
as
long
as
everything's
working
most
of
the
community
doesn't
pay
a
lot
of
attention
to
administrative
things,
because
we're
busy
doing
interesting
stuff
instead.
I
So
if
you
split
these
two
kinds
of
things,
you
have
a
very
definite
difference
in
the
people
who
have
the
oversight
role
as
opposed
to
the
people
who
are
supposed
to
be
representing
the
views
of
the
community
and
and
I.
That
seems
to
me
to
be
a
feature
that
I
would
I
would
be
loath
to
lose.
I
understand
the
the
concerns
on
the
on
the
on
the
list,
but
I
do
think
that
some
of
the
concerns
that
have
been
raised
on
the
list
have
the
flavor
of
well.
I
Y
Y
But
I
do
agree
that
there
is
the
need
to
retain
to
find
a
solution
to
some
of
the
reasons
for
which
it
was
originally
proposed.
So
there
is
the
particular
split
that
Andrew
just
outlined,
but
I
also
want
to
emphasize
that
right
now
for
the
IOC,
whenever
there
is
something
that
comes
up
that
requires,
you
know
a
reasonable
amount
of
community
perspective
in
terms
of
how
should
we
do
this?
J
Hi
I'm
Bob
Hendon,
sorry
I've,
said
on
the
list:
I
I'm,
not
supportive,
of
having
the
Advisory
Council
at
least
the
way
it's
written
down
now,
because
I
couldn't
figure
out
what
it
actually
does
and
the
you
know
it's
another
group
and
all
of
that.
But
it
leads
me
to
another
question
which
I
realized:
I,
don't
don't
understand,
is
I
can't
tell
in
this
model
of
of
staff
and
board
and
potentially
Advisory
Council,
who
actually
makes
any
decisions
I
mean.
Do
you
want
the
staff
it
I
mean?
These
are
just
questions.
J
Does
the
staff
decide
on
a
venue
you
know
on
on
a
new
activity
or
spending
money
or
hiring
someone?
Does
the
board
do
that?
You
know
I,
don't
know
where
that
you
know
it
uses
the
word.
We
talked
about
a
high
level
oversight.
Clearly
the
board,
if
it's
approving
a
budget
is
making
yearly
decisions
by
based
on
what's
in
that
budget,
but
I
was
in
the
staff,
is
preparing
the
budget.
So
I,
don't
I,
don't
really
understand?
Oh
you
know.
J
Maybe
we
just
need
to
take
this
another
level,
but
we
need
to
decide
where
decisions
get
made.
You
know,
and
then
you
know
and
then
there's
the
issue
of
getting
the
right
feedback.
I
agree,
that's
important
and
if
we
end
up
with
people
running
this,
who
don't
aren't
closely
tied
to
the
ITF
community,
we're
gonna
have
a
bigger
problem,
but
you
know
you
know.
If
we're
not,
you
know,
and
the
question
is
you
know
this
is
how
much
of
is
the
ITF
going
to
continue
and
be
a
volunteer
versus
a
staff
driven
organization?
J
If
you
start
having
staff
making
all
the
decisions
that
sort
of
answers
that
question
so
I
would
lean
towards
having
the
board
probably
make
decisions
like
that.
But
you
know,
then
it's
a
slippery
slope
into
the
IOC
today,
so
I.
This
needs
to
get
worked
out.
A
lot
I
think
before
we
could
even
possibly
decide
on
what
to
do.
J
J
It's
all
of
that
and
because
I
don't
think
it
unless
I
missed
it
I,
don't
think
it
really
talks
about
it.
You
know
we're
talking
about
the
organization
of
blocks
groups
and
their
relationships,
but
we
didn't
actually
say
where
or
there's
some
dotted
lines
from
the
AC
about
advice.
So
that's
not
decisions,
but
we
don't
talk
about
where
the
decisions
are.
For
you
know,
how
is
this
gonna
work
operationally
yeah.
D
N
N
D
N
Z
Good
afternoon,
Elliot
Lear
here
three
comments.
First
of
all,
just
as
a
point
of
observation,
things
aren't
that
broken
in
terms
of
how
they're
working
from
my
personal,
individual
point
of
view,
I
know
we're
going
through
this
exercise.
What
I'm,
just
asking
for
as
part
of
that
is
we
take
our
time
and
and
certainly
allow
for
a
lot
of
exploration
of
our
assumptions
as
we
go
through
all
of
this,
which
leads
me
to
the
point
about
assumptions
and
I
just
want
to
put
this
out
as
a
point
of
information.
Z
It
could
be
that
you
could
go
directly
to
the
community
for
the
support
activity
and
actually
allow
the
community
to
literally
vote
people
in
or
out
as
part
of
it
now
I'm,
not
suggesting
that
that's
the
right
way
forward,
I'm
saying
it's
a
possibility
that
could
be
explored
and
it
answers
I.
Think
Andrews
question
rather
directly
in
terms
of
how
people
are
responsible
to
the
community,
and
this
actually
did
show
up
in
a
meeting
venue
discussion
early
on.
Z
If
you
look
at
the
front
of
the
document,
basically
says:
if
you
have
a
complaint
go
here
or
here
or
here
or
here,
and
that
is
a
problem
because
it
really
doesn't
say
know
that
you
can
go
to
one
place
or
take
a
particular
activity
action.
You
have
to
take
many.
Finally,
the
third
comment-
and
this
is
as
related
to
the
to
the
to
Joe
halls
draft
as
anything
else.
One
thing
I
ask
as
a
request
is,
as
we
form
all
these
structures
to
the
extent
possible
there
needs
to
that.
Z
The
actual
term
I
asseh
is
very
useful
to
keep
stable
and
it
seems
to
me
that
that
that
is
in
danger
of
being
lost
in
at
least
Joe's
draft
and
I.
Just
ask
that,
as
as
people
consider
these
these
things,
that's
that's
one
stable
identifier
that
that
we
were
told
to
use
and
we're
using
and
I
just
asked
that
it
be
kept
stable,
Thanks.
Oh.
Z
Okay,
so
let's
ask:
why
is
it
useful
to
be
stable?
We
just
went
through
an
exercise
as
part
of
the
meeting
venue
process,
essentially
ripping
out
all
of
the
you
know
the
terms
that
were
below
the
level
of
AI
asset,
and
so
you
know
I
the
IAD
could
be
flexible.
The
IOC
could
go
away
all
these
other
things
can
go
away,
but
the
one
thing
we're
pointing
to
is
the
is
a--.
If
that
goes
away
well,
we
got
a
lot
of
rewriting
to
do.
Yeah.
D
U
Q
Q
That
didn't
make
any
sense
to
me
so
I
think
in
response
to
Bob
some
of
Bob's
questions
and
building
off
of
some
of
what
Leslie
said.
I
think
a
lot
of
I
think
Joe
and
Jason's
draft
actually
proposes
some
specific
answers
to
many
of
the
questions
that
Bob
raised,
namely
the
board
has
a
very
limited
set
of
tasks
that
are
assigned
to
it.
Reviewing
the
performance
of
the
executive
director
and
approving
the
budget,
and
you
know
providing
some
high-level
strategic
direction
to
the
executive
director.
But
it's
quite
limited.
Q
The
the
staff
has
the
all
of
the
operational
responsibilities
and
then
there's
this
question
of
the
Advisory,
Council
and
I
sort
of
thought.
You
know
looking
at
this
from,
though
from
where
the
how
the
current
IO
C
works,
that
the
its,
if
he
I'm
happy
to
have
that
Advisory
Council
to
Oh
a
seems
seems
okay,
but
there's
a
couple
of
functions
that
are
at
the
interface
between
the
staff
and
the
community.
Q
That
will
need
some
kind
of
definition
of
how
is
it
going
to
work
or,
if
they're
undefined,
then
then
we
all
need
to
accept
that
they're
gonna
work
in
some
ad
hoc
fashion
and
they're
out
sort
of
two
different
levels.
I
think
one
of
those
is
a
kind
of
gut
check,
so
you
know
when
the
staff
has
you
know
not
huge
decisions.
Not
you
know.
Should
this
is
this
what
the
budget
should
be
for
this
year,
but
smaller
decisions,
even
let's,
let's
take
a
recent
example
from
the
IOC.
Q
What
is
the
list
of
cities
that
we're
going
to
query
the
community
about
for
feedback
for
potential
future
meeting
venues?
You
would
be
shocked,
shocked
at
the
number
of
emails
that
the
IOC
sent
to
each
other
about
this
question
recently
and
obviously
right
now.
The
way
that
we
do.
That
is
because
many
of
the
IOC
members
are
appointed
by
the
community.
The
commute
by
of
that
mechanism.
The
community
has
a
ton
of
input
into
what
the
list
of
cities
is,
that
we
query
about
for
future
meeting
venues.
Q
So,
in
a
future
scenario,
if
I
mean
I,
think
that's
something
that
the
staff
could
do
just
fine,
but
if,
if
they
wanted
to
just
go
check
that
without
questioning
on
the
IETF
at
IGF
list
to
get
a
gut
check,
who
are
they
gonna
ask?
And
maybe
it's
we
say:
they're
gonna
do
that
ad
hoc
they're
gonna
ask
you,
know
people
they
know
or
whatever
that's
okay,
but
we
need
to
recognize
that.
Q
That's
that's
a
situation
that
we're
setting
setting
the
staff
up
for
and
the
at
the
higher
level
is
when
they
actually
do
need
to
engage
with
the
community
on
on
a
question:
how
are
they
going
to
do
that?
So,
if
they're
going
to
I
again
know
just
just
an
example,
change
the
registration
fee
categories
is
that
something
that
they
will
just
put
directly
to
the
IETF
list.
Is
that
the
best
way
to
do
that?
Q
Maybe
not
I
think
the
I
think
the
Advisory
Council
was
sort
of
born
out
of
some
of
some
of
those
ideas
that
you
need
some
vehicle
for
the
staff
to
be
able
to
understand
what
they
think.
The
community's
response
is
going
to
be
to
something
without
having
to
ask
the
whole
community
in
plenary
every
time,
because
that's
a
complete
non-starter
as
far
as
I'm
concerned.
Q
It's
part
of
even
the
reason
why
we
have
difficulty
doing
taking
out
carrying
out
some
of
our
administrative
tasks
right
now
is
because
there's
so
much
delay
introduced
by
the
minimum
amount
of
consultation
with
the
community
that
we
do
at
the
moment
that
it
causes
us
a
great
strain
in
getting
things
done.
Getting
things
like
meeting
of
any
contracts
done
so
I
think
we
need
something.
We
need
some
mechanism
to
find,
even
if
it's
not
this
one,
for
the
staff
being
able
to
get
a
sense
of
the
community
as
they're
carrying
out
their
tasks.
D
Q
Of
thought,
that's
what
the
stab
at
the
AC
was
was
an
attempt
to
do
was
to
take
those
those
parts
that
the
IOC
is
currently
doing,
that
it's
not
supposed
to
be
doing,
because
it's
an
oversight
body
and
putting
them
someplace
without
decisional
Authority,
that's
kind
of
how
I
read
it
in
there.
But
people
don't
seem
to
like
that.
That's
fine!
But
if,
if
the
decision
authority
lies
with
the
staff
and
then
there
needs
to
be
something
that
describes
how
they
relate
to
the
community,
that's
all.
L
Which
means
I'm
ex
officio
enough
to
have
a
startlingly
large
number
of
thoughts
and
I.
Think
that
the
point
that
that
started?
This
was
a
very
good
point,
which
is
that
having
one
individual
who's,
an
ex
officio
member
of
this
body,
because
of
in
this
case,
her
membership
of
a
different
body.
The
IETF
chair
being
also
on
this
board,
is
too
small
a
conduit
for
the
flow
of
community
information
which
needs
to
go
between.
Certainly
the
board
and
the
community,
and
even
more
certainly,
the
staff
in
the
community.
L
So
I
agree
that
this
is
a
problem,
but
I
think
that,
where
you're
getting
feedback
from
us
is
that
you're?
Looking
for
a
mechanism
you're
looking
for
a
set
of
methods
and
instead
of
defining
the
set
of
methods
you
to
find
a
board,
a
council,
a
set
of
people
and
what
you
put
in
there
for
the
set
of
methods
these
people
might
use
was
very
reactive
and
I.
L
Think
it's
because
what
you
were
looking
for
was
a
set
of
mechanisms
for
consultation,
and
you
were
picking
mechanisms
for
consultation
that
were
appropriate
to
the
board
rather
than
using
this
board.
As
the
mechanism
for
reaching
the
community
as
a
whole
and
I
think,
you've
heard,
Lesley
and
and
and
ELISA
and
others
say
they
are
comfortable-
losing
the
AC
I,
also
more
than
comfortable
losing
the
AC
I'm,
not
willing
to
lose.
L
There's
a
strong
sense
in
which
D
is
G
is
the
customer
of
certain
staff
activities
and
you
consult
them
for
those
activities
where
the
working
group
chairs
or
other
document
authors,
maybe
even
the
big
customer
for
other
activities,
and
you
consult
them
for
for
those
activities.
There
are
even
some
where
the
IAB
or
the
IRT
F
or
some
of
the
other
groups
or
the
customer
and
those
are
the
people
who
get
consulting.
But
what
you're
looking
to
build
here
is
an
organizational
expectation
that
those
mechanisms
are
in
place
and
a
way
to
build
new
ones.
L
When
they
are
needed
and
I
think
the
concern
people
have
with
this
is
it
looks
like
it's
replacing
those
mechanisms
with
consultation
with
this
much
smaller
body
and
I.
Think
the
fastest
way
to
get
rid
of
that
at
impression
is
just
to
get
rid
of
the
body
from
the
proposal
and
acknowledge
that
we
need
to
build
those
mechanisms,
even
if
they
aren't
built
at
the
time.
The
base
draft
is
done.
Thank,
You.
M
Hollis
jump
for
it
since
wearing
no
that's
whatsoever,
I'm
happy
to
see
the
sense
of
the
room
that
Advisory
Council
Moscow,
because
what
the
draft
did
not
say
was
if
the
Advisory
Council
tells
they
execute
the
director
one
thing
and
the
board
tells
him
what
another
thing:
what
should
they
do
and
the
answer
must
absolutely
and
equip
Allah
any
clearly.
Okay,
now
I
can
spell
de
and
unmistakably
without
a
doubt,
be
that
it
does
what
the
board
helps
in
him
or
her
to
do,
because
otherwise
there
is
no
board.
M
So
I
like
the
idea
of
having
the
working
group
mechanism
for
this
consultation
thing,
because
any
mechanism
that
has
a
selection
step
will
lead
to
people
saying
I
was
not
selected.
Why
did
you
select
that
guy?
Not
me
I'm
not
represented
well
in
the
case
of
the
working
group
mechanism,
just
walk
in
please
we
can
disregard
your
output
in
the
plenary
in
the
planning
of
the
work
group,
as
we
always
do
so
we
have.
M
D
D
Y
That's
the
board
end
or
end
or
staff,
so
the
other
thing
I
wanted
to
follow
up
on
from
Bob's
question
was
and
I
want
to
agree
with
Alyssa
that
a
large
part
of
the
goal
here
is
for
staff
to
be
making
the
decisions
and
in
order
not
to
wind
up
in
the
situation
that
drol
was
outlining
earlier
of
staff
capture.
We
we
have
to
have
two
things:
one,
an
expectation,
a
requirement
of
community
engagement
and
two
a
very
clear
way
to
submit
feedback
to
the
board
to
address
the
executive
directors
behavior.
Y
K
Pelletier
so
when
the
IOC
was
first
formed
and
we
started
operating,
the
IOC
would
meet
twice
a
twice
a
month.
It
was
a
tremendous
amount
of
work
and
over
a
period
of
time
we
started
creating
committees
and
we
formed,
for
example,
for
example,
of
meetings
committee
and
that
Fred
Baker
Bob
Hindon
Olli
Jacobson
Dave
Crocker,
the
community.
K
These
were
this
was
the
community
okay
and
they
would
they
would
make
recommendations.
It
would
come
through
to
the
IOC
and
the
IOC
who
make
the
decision.
Okay,
yeah
ID
didn't
do
that
participated
in
the
process,
but
didn't
do
that.
There
would
always
be
something
that
comes
up
in
which
we
needed
to
get
community
input,
something
something
different.
It
didn't
necessarily
follow
in
that
stream.
That
flow
of
the
meetings
committee,
the
technology
committee,
the
legal
committee,
Finance
Committee.
K
It
was
obvious,
always
something
that
came
up
and
then
there
would
be
the
the
tussle
between
who
owns
the
issue.
Who
is
the
IOC
chair
or
as
the
IETF
chair,
who's
gonna,
take
it
to
the
community
or
why
don't
we
just
send
it
to
the
iesg
and
they'll
provide
the
community
feedback
because
they're
well
representative
of
the
community?
K
Okay,
so
we
always
went
through
that
so
under
this
new
process,
what
I
think
I'm
hearing
is
this
and
then-
and
we
shouldn't
do
away
with
the
committee's
and
they
should
be
community
members
on
all
of
them
and
maybe
there
are
board
members
of
dissipate
or
not.
But
in
comes
the
recommendation,
the
executive
director,
we
recommend
Stockholm
for
IETF,
a109
or
something
and
the
executive
director
says:
okay
and
and
the
recommendation
comes
through
and
here's
why
we
met
all
the
selection
criteria.
We
pull
the
community.
K
We've
done
all
this
stuff,
blah
blah
blah,
which
is
the
way
it
flows.
Okay,
executrix
it
okay
and
he
makes
the
decision
if
an
issue
comes
along
and
a
decision
has
to
be
made
about.
We
need
some
community
input
on.
This
is
kind
of
unique
right.
Now
we're
talking
about
an
advisory
council
who
owns
the
issue?
Does
the
board
only
issue?
Does
the
owns
the
issue?
K
I
think
who
owns
the
issue
is
the
executive
director
in
the
executive
director
decides
where
that,
where
he's
gonna
get
that
community,
he
or
she
is
gonna,
get
that
community
input.
It
means
to
be
the
ie
B
CI
a
B.
You
know
if
it
needs
to
be
the
is
G
or
the
broader
community.
That's
the
person
who
owns
the
issue
because
the
ultimately
owns
the
decision,
so
how
you
structure
that
to
happen.
D
So
we
had
some
discussion
about
non-us
jurisdiction,
so
I
wanted
to
make
sure
we
brought
that
up
and
recognize
that
that
was
a
big
part
of
the
mailing
list
discussion.
You
know
just
highlighting
the
stuff
that
Morgan
Louis
when
we
asked
them
specifically
about
incorporating
in
a
non-us
jurisdiction,
I'm
pretty
sure,
although
someone
could
you
guys
may
know
better
than
me,
but
it
seems
like
that's.
Many
of
those
options
are
in
the
fully
independent
option
that
we
sort
of
ruled
out.
D
Us
taxpayers
could
not
make
charitable
donations
that
I
thought
may
not
be
able
to
to
actually
give
the
funds
to
that
entity
and
that,
even
despite
that,
the
desire
to
incorporate
someone
else,
we
do
stuff
with
us
staff
and
us
human
resources,
and
things
like
that.
We're
gonna
have
to
incorporate
in
the
u.s.
anyway
and
Michael
Richardson
pointed
out
hey.
Maybe
we
should
at
least
consider
what
other
flavors
of
incorporation
and
non-us
jurisdictions
may
make.
It
easier
for
non-us
entities
to
donate.
That
seems
a
little
bit.
AB
Michael
Richards:
no,
it's
not
actually
what
I
asked,
but
it's
a
good
question,
but
I
actually
asked
a
wanted
to
know
eight,
a
more
primitive
question
which
of
the
four
possible
us
things
which
one
of
them
would
be
easiest
would
is
there
any
advantage
to
any
of
them?
If
we
then
want
to
create
a
non-us
organization
that
is
affiliated
with
them,
for
instance,
maybe
some
of
those
options
would
forbid
a
non-us
citizen
or
resident
from
being
on
their
board.
AB
They
don't
think
that's
the
case,
but
I
don't
know
that
for
sure
or
would
permit
a
non-us
entity,
not
a
person,
but
it
ended
a
corporation
to
be
on
its
board
or
vice
versa,
or
they
would
be
unable
to
appoint
and
on
you
up
someone
to
somewhere
else.
For
some
reason:
I,
don't
know
that
was
really
my
question
about
thinking
toward
the
future.
D
None
of
those
options
make
it
easy
to
incorporate
a
non-us
institution.
I,
don't
think
you
can
have
any
non
individual
entities
sitting
on
the
board
with
the
single
corporate
member
structures
that
we're
dealing
with
here,
you
have
to
be
representing
yourself,
I
mean
you
could
be
they're
employed
by
an
entity,
but
it's
used
anyway.
So
that's
all
we
had
to
talk
about.
We
were
thinking
about
some
tentative
hums
about
legal
structure.
I
had
not
crafted
any
on
the
slides,
I
mean.
AC
D
Q
There
seem
to
be
two
power
choices.
Yes,
so
what
I
was
gonna
say?
Is
that
I
think
you
know
part
of
the
meta
take
away
from
the
previous
discussion?
Is
that,
like
I,
didn't
hear
a
lot
of
people
saying
what
is
all
this
change
about
and
so
I
think
we
can
kind
of
ask
about
whether
people
are.
You
know
ready
to
to
select
one
of
the
change
related
options
that
we
have
left
or
not
so
I'm,
hoping
that
we
can
do
that
at.
D
L
It's
Hardy
speaking
I
I
feel
like
the
conversation
to
this
point,
has
been
very
useful
and
I.
Thank
you.
I
do
not
feel
like.
However,
it
really
represented
the
reasons
why
you
might
choose
type
one
in
in
quite
the
way
I
would
have
expected.
Were
we
actually
going
to
do
a
bake-off
here
and
my
apologies
for
not
realizing
that
this
was
the
moment.
We're
gonna,
decide
I
sort
of
thought.
L
L
L
Pain
and
yes,
but
it's
also
a
valuable
exercise
in
a
couple
of
different
ways.
One
writing
it
up
and
getting
the
tax
authorities
to
agree
that
it
is
an
appropriate
use
of
this
category
is
I,
think
something
that's
a
valuable
exercise
for
not
just
the
relationship
to
the
the
organization
of
which
it
is
a
supporting
organization,
but
also
for
the
relationship
to
the
eventual
donors,
because
it
makes
very
clear
what
kind
of
legal
documentation
you're
using
and
it's
the
most
independent
legal
documentation
that
you
are
a
501c3
in
purpose
and
effect.
L
Now,
from
a
legal
perspective,
everything
we
have
indicates
that
we
would
still
remain
a
a
501c3
from
tax
purposes
by
doing
the
disregarded
entity,
because
we
would
inherit
that
of
I
sock.
So
I
totally
agree
from
the
point
of
view
of
whether,
when
the
checks
come
in,
the
effect
is
little
but
I
believe
that
there
is
a
difference
and
how
many
checks
might
come
in
and
what
we
would
use
and
have
available
to
us
when
we
want
to
go
out
and
solicit
those
checks.
L
We
would
not
intend
to
do
that
not
going
to
do
a
bad
job
of
myself,
but
I
think
there
are
some
compensations
that
we
did
not
explore
today
and
that
if
we
go
into
the
charter
phase,
I
hope
people
will
not
be
upset
if
they,
if
they
are
supporting
the
LLC.
If
I
continue
to
ask
people
to
consider
the
other
after
having
consideration
of
those
advantages
as
well
in.
AE
AE
AE
AE
Also,
then,
all
of
the
control,
if
it
was
ever
to
be
exercised
and
sits
with
Isaac
and
all
the
money
should
it
be
decided
to
sits
with
myself.
Okay,
what
does
either
one
of
these
gifts
give
you?
It
gives
you
a
legal
presence
and
it
gives
you
the
ability,
then
to
do
things
as
a
legal
presence.
Apart
from
my
sock,
each
one
of
them
has
some
pieces
of
it
that
still
connects
you
with
Isaac
but
I.
Think
generally,
at
least
we
and
I
thought
like
that.
AE
AE
It
seems
to
me,
as
I,
listened
to
you
that
once
you
get
into
how
do
we
do
this?
The
more
important
questions
in
some
ways
are
going
to
lie
there,
except
for
what
I've
been
hearing
me
say
from
day,
one,
the
control
issue
of
the
board
and
I
think
you
have
to
just
make
a
decision.
I
think
that
the
Ted's
not
wrong
that
you.
AE
AE
The
501c3
exercise
is
rigorous
and
good,
and
it
makes
it
clear
as
to
what
things
are,
but
you
can
also
in
your
charter,
make
sure
that
state
it
seems
to
me
and
all,
and
so
it
reflects
that
status
and
then
to
me,
these
operating
agreements
are
going
to
be
key
and
it
doesn't
matter-
and
at
least
in
my
brain
under
which
of
these
structures
we
move
forward,
but
that
operating
agreement
is
going
to
show
show
how
the
two
first
for
you,
guys
you're
gonna
figure
out
all
those
other
issues.
Advisory
board,
no
advisory
board.
AE
I
think
that
actually
moving
ahead,
even
if
it
was
tentative,
you
know
you
can
always
go
back
and
say:
oh
now,
that
we've
done
all
that
this
really
doesn't
work.
If
you
guys
move
ahead
today,
March
on
deciding
this
thing,
I
think
you
really
take
a
big
step
forward
and
then
you
get
momentum
for
the
next
pieces.
So
thank
you
for
letting
me
do
that
long
thought.
D
H
Hi
Desiree
Melissa
I'm,
not
talking
on
behalf
of
Isaac
or
a
trustee
just
as
a
member
of
the
community,
so
I
just
like
to
draw
your
attention
as
someone
who
is
European,
you
know
having
seen
the
ITF
org
for
many
times,
that
I
would
in
future
be
seeing
ITF
LLC
I'm,
because
a
lot
of
people
are
not
legal
professionals.
They
would
also
assume
that
LLC
is
a
commercial.
Well,
it's
not
so
I
would
urge
you
if
you
were
to
take
an
LLC
and
not
do
a
501,
3
C,
which
I
think
it's
perfectly
legitimate
sand.
H
AA
The
couple
comments,
and
maybe
to
starting
with
the
last
one
response
to
that
last
point:
the
the
LLC
I
mean
the
organization.
You
know
as
a
legal
entity
would
be,
you
know,
IOL
or
C
or
IETF
LLC,
but
we
could
do
a
DBA
that
could
drop
the
LLC
name.
So
I
think
the
LLC
name
could
be
essentially
invisible
to
to
our
stakeholders
would
be.
K
AA
Sort
of
detailed
point
the
I'm
so
I'm,
not
on
the
design
team
I'm,
not
the
lawyer,
who's
been
working
on
this
project,
so
I'm
not
really
officially.
Wearing
my
you
know,
IETF
counsel,
hat,
but
just
my
thoughts
about
this
generally
I'm,
a
fan
of
the
LLC
model.
I
think
it
that
it
really
in
many
ways
is
the
best
of
both
worlds.
I
would
I
think
Ted
alluded
to
you.
You
know
the
challenges
you
know
acknowledge
the
challenges
associated
with
our
independent
501,
C,
3
status
and
I.
AA
Think
I
would
come
down
on
the
side
of
that
equation
of
you
know,
I
get
the
optics
of
it
being
an
advantage
to
you
have
done
that,
but
the
amount
of
work
associated
with
that
is
is
enormous
and
there
are
ongoing
compliance
requirements.
So
I
think
things
like
registering
in
different
states,
and
things
like
that
so
I
think
not
having
to
jump
through
those
hoops
and
being
able
to
take
advantage
of
all
of
the
hard
work
that
that
the
ISO
does
to
manage.
AA
Those
kind
of
compliance
issues
is,
is
a
big
deal,
the
you
know
the
the.
What
strikes
me
about
the
LLC
model?
Is
it
really
is
sort
of
the
best
of
all
worlds
in
the
sense
of
it
does
give
the
you
know,
liability
limitation
for
I
sock,
but
it
also
enables
us
to
you
know
again
really
take
advantage
of
all
of
the
structure
that
the
that
I
sock
has,
and
so
you
know
for
the
purposes
of
dealing
with
the
IRS
and
all
the
nonprofit
status.
AA
AA
The
operating
agreement
of
an
LLC
is
a
really
remarkable
document,
and
it's
some
LLC's
or
this
you
know
creature
of
contract
and-
and
we
have
this
enormous
flexibility,
you
know
to
you,
know
I
think
we
can,
you
know,
negotiate
an
operating
agreement
for
an
LLC
that
can
say
essentially
you
know
what
we
wanted
to
say.
You
know
negotiating
carefully
with
with
I
saw
I
think
if
we
go
the
other
route,
the
supporting
or
growt
we're
just
locked
into
a
little
more
of
a
just
straight
traditional.
You
know
kind
of
corporate
model,
and
so
I
think.
AA
The
point
is
that
there's
there's
more
flexibility
that
the
LLC
model
gives
us
more
flexibility
than
we
might
expect
under
the
other
model,
and
the
last
point
I
want
to
make
is
just
the
you
know
this.
There
there's
increasing
precedent
for
this.
This
LLC
model
for
what's
called
fiscal
sponsorship
in
nonprofits.
So
we
see
this
in
lots
of
non-technical
areas
where
there
are,
you
know,
foundations,
like
tides,
foundation
and
other
foundations
that
serve
as
fiscal
sponsors.
AA
For
for
other
you
know,
projects
and,
and
this
LLC
model
is
really
the
kind
of
emerging
way
that
that's
done.
It's
also,
you
know,
I,
think
increasing
we're
seeing
it
in
the
in
the
technology
space.
So
an
organization
called
joint
Development
Foundation
has
a
set
of
you,
know,
standards,
organizations
and
open
source
projects
that
nest
underneath
it
is
all
built
on
this.
You
know
LLC
model
and
then
Linux
Foundation.
AA
You
know
just
you
know,
borrowed
that
concept
from
JDF
plugged
it
in
and
launched
the
Linux
Foundation
projects
and,
and
so
I
think
we're
seeing
that
you
know
even
in
the
technology
space.
This
is
really
you
know,
a
model
that
that's
being
adopted.
You
know
I,
think
because
of
the
flexibility
and
because
I
think
it
really
nails
the
the
goal
is
at
least
that
we're
going
for
so
I
just
want
to
put
my
my
case
in
four
LLC.
Thank
you,
sir.
Thank
you.
J
J
C
Okay,
why
don't
we
do
that
so
can
I
go
to
everybody
understand
with
question?
Is
here
so
we're
not
getting
into
the
details
of
whether
it
is
a
type
one
supporting
organization
or
an
LLC
at
this
point
is
just
do
people
here
generally
feel
the
right
direction
is
to
form
a
nice
up,
I
suck
so
did
Erie.
Sorry,
I.
T
Chaired
you
I
was
what,
if
we
might
put
that
off
for
one
second
I
want
to
ask
Bob
since
he
said
you're
not
so
we
at
this
point,
we've
had
a
couple
of
rounds
with
attorneys.
We've
had
some
discussion
design
team
we've
had
some
discussion.
Sorry,
that's
a
couple
rounds.
Attorneys
we've
had
a
couple
of
runs,
a
design
team
and
with
the
mailing
list,
I'm
I,
guess
if,
at
this
point,
you're
not
feeling
ready
like
what
what
more
is
needed?
What's
what
other
information
are
you
looking
for?
L
It's
already
not
giving
Bob
Hinton's
answer,
but
giving
my
own
to
that
I.
Think
Brad
Pitt,
elect
Lee
pointed
out
that
there's
a
distinction
here
between
the
amount
of
work
that
the
type
1
501c3
gives
you
and
the
benefit
of
the
optics
and
I
think
it
would
give
us
a
chance
to
go
and
talk
to
our
major
funders
and
see
whether
those
optics
matter
to
them
or
not,
if
it,
if
it
matters,
that's
worth
knowing
if
it
doesn't
matter
it's
worth
knowing
too
well.
C
L
C
We
do
that
that
one
hum
first
and
then
then
we'll
talk
a
bit
about
how
people
feel
about
how
much
more
information
we
need,
and
things
like
that
and
we'll
do
this
real,
gradual
well
get
through.
It
I
think
only
you
and
I,
and
a
few
other
people
in
this
room.
Remember
that
one
probably
ok,
so
just
that
straight
up
down.
Do
people
here
in
this
room
feel
that
the
right
path
forward
is
for
us
to
form
a
nice
EPS.
C
I
socks
subsidiary
neutral
to
the
question
of
exactly
what
form
that
is
going
to
take
at
this
point.
If
you
feel
that
way,
please
hum
now,
if
you
do
not
feel
that
it's
the
right
direction,
please
hum
now
that
sounded
very
clear
and
decisive
to
me.
I
would
just
like
to
take
the
question
of
the
the
more
information
question.
I'm
just
curious.
C
If
this
is
this
is
something
a
lot
of
people
feel
in
the
room
that
we
need
to
do
a
lot
more
investigation,
so
can
I
just
ask
for
and
then
then
we'll
get
to
you
yes,
lineup
right
now,
because
we're
I'll
need
you
right
after
this
one
I'm
gonna
get
to
you.
So
do
people
in
the
room
feel
like
we
have
had
a
good
amount
of
discussion
about
the
legal
options.
C
Do
people
understand
generally
kind
of
what
what
the
legal
alternatives
are
based
on
that
I'd
say:
do
we
need
do
people
feel
like
we
have
enough
information
already
to
make
a
decision
between
the
two
alternatives
we've
discussed
in
terms
of
subsidiaries?
If
you
feel
we
do
have
that
information,
please
hum
now.
C
AF
AF
AG
:
Jennings
I'm,
the
global
host
representative
Francisco,
when
Ward
is
too
busy
doing
something
else,
and
you
know
we
be
totally
fine
with
the
LLC
that
would
be
just
would
totally
work
for
us.
That's
not
a
problem
there.
If
we
had
some
specific
issue
with
wanting
to
know
more
about
the
finances,
I
would
go
discuss
of
advice
right
and
you
know
we've
been
doing
this
for
years.
It
hasn't
been
a
problem.
Yes,
of
course,
there's
interest
in
the
finances,
but
we
can
get
that
information.
That's
not
a
reason
to
go
the
other
direction.
J
Bob
Hindon
so
I
respect
the
people
who
yet
who
just
spoke,
who
support
us
today,
a
tremendous
amount.
This
is
not
intended
to
be
the
opposite,
but
the
people
we
really
want
to
ask
are
the
people
who
are
not
giving
today
that
we
want
to
give
in
the
future,
because
it's
been
said
that
this
our
structure,
you
know
the
way
you
write
the
check
is
an
impediment
to
getting
additional
sponsors.
So
those
are
the
people
we
need
to
ask
this
question,
not
I
mean
the
people
are
already
doing
it.
D
J
C
J
D
C
Q
The
only
one
thing
I
was
just
gonna
note:
the
process
started
in
November
of
2016
this
process.
This
has
not
been
a
short
process,
its
March
of
2018
for
people
who
aren't
paying
attention.
So
that's
a
lot
of
time
just
to
get
to
this
point
and
there's
a
lot
left
to
do,
and
I
at
least
feel
some
sense
of
urgency,
because
there
are
pending
leadership,
changes
that
I
sock,
that
we
don't
want
have
to
start
over
I
think.
Q
But
the
other
thing
I
will
say
is
that
what
we're
talking
about
now
and
I
hope
we
will
get
to
the
point
of
maybe
talking
about
a
little
charter
that
I
may
have
written
up
and
while
I
was
sitting
here
is,
is
kind
of
something
you
know
some
words
to
put
into
a
charter
which
is
then
going
to
go
out
for
IETF
review
and
will
be
sent
to
this
list.
Even
before
that
happens,
and
so
there
is
a
you
know:
continued
opportunity
for
everybody
who's,
not
in
this
room
to
comment
and
so
forth.
Q
C
AA
Pitt
all
theirs
wanted
to
comment
briefly
on
and
if
the
sort
of
the
theory
of
the
type
one
org,
we
would
jump
through
our
501c3
hoops
and
therefore
be
more
credible.
You
know
as
a
as
a
3
C
3
public
charity.
We
actually
will
be.
You
know
exactly
in
the
same
substantive
boat.
You
know
if
we
go
if
Coviello
sea
route
in
the
sense
of
we
will
be
a
disregarded
entity,
you
know,
subject
to
maintaining
the
501c3
status
of
of
I
sock.
AA
So
one
of
the
most
important
things
that
I
sock
is
going
to
demand
in
this
negotiation
is
going
to
be
don't
screw
up.
Our
C
3
status,
I
mean
that'll,
be
the
fundamental
thing.
So
so
we
will
be.
You
know
fully
obligated
to
to
behave
properly
as
a
c3
and
and
we
can
communicate
that
to
the
world,
because
that's
going
to
in
fact
be
a
core
legal
obligation
of
ourselves.
AA
AB
Michael
Richardson
so
I
believe
and
please
correct
me
wrong.
Twelve
people
in
a
room
probably
do
I
believe
we
just
hired
someone
who's,
knocking
on
doors,
our
eye
sockets,
just
hired
someone
to
knock
on
doors
to
sell
precious
metal,
sponsorships
and
I
thought
that
we
were
already
doing.
I
was
surprised
you
that
I
thought
we
were
already
doing
that,
but
maybe
there's
been
a
change
of
people,
so
presumably
those
that
person
would
know
the
answer
to
the
question.
Bob
asked
or
will
very
soon
know
the
question
you
don't
think
so
I
think
is.
O
O
I
mean
I.
Think
you
know
like
the
the
ITF
is
you
know,
I
like
that
level
of
what
randy
said
in
the
mailing
list
about,
like
you,
know,
you're,
given
a
magic
box
which
cures
poverty
and
the
first
thing
engineer
wants
to
take
it
apart,
how
it
works
like
I-
and
I
understand
the
instinct
to
like
dig
into
all
this
and
really
like
be.
I
want
to
understand
every
person,
every
precise
detail
and,
like
you
know
and
understand
it
and
like,
but
the
principle
of
like
a
second
management.
O
O
So
I
can
drool
saying
this
too
often
like
and
analyze
this,
and
they
said
they
came
back
to
the
recommendation
and
like
I'm
not
saying
like,
like
you
know,
a
lot,
I
trust
them,
but
I,
look
at
this
and
I
go
what
they're
saying
like
they
did
a
budget
analysis,
but
they're
singing
seem
sane
to
me
and
so
I
feel,
and
so,
like
my
instinct
under
the
circumstances
is
like
what
exactly
management
means
here
is
hey.
This
looks
saying:
let's
do
what
they
say
as
opposed
to.
Let
us
like.
O
X
That
sort
of
thing
was
was
interesting,
not
not
this
level
of
details
in
my
experience
that
now
that
might
change
the
future
fee.
If
it's
it's
a
different
set
up
the
other
thing
that
I
want
to
say
my
personal
opinion.
We
just
get.
You
know
moving
of
this.
We
have
other
interesting
things
to
do.
Let's
just
experts
have
provided
opinions.
We
should
take
that
and
with
that
Thank
You
Elliot.
Z
Z
First
make
sure
that
as
you're
explaining
what
you're
proposing
to
the
community
be
absolutely
crystal
clear
as
to
why
you're
doing
what
you're
doing
the
documents
at
this
point,
at
least
some
of
them
are
a
little
opaque
about
that
or
maybe
it's
just
dense
in
terms
of
contacts
and
and
so
I
would
just
say,
take
take
at
least
some
time
to
do
that
part.
The
second
point
is
about
where
you
draw
the
line,
it's
in
terms
of
the
boundaries,
the
organization.
This
is
just
another
information
point.
Z
Sometimes,
when
we've
been
doing
some
standards
work
with
other
organizations,
they
ask
what
is
your
address
and
who
do
I?
You
know
how
do
I
register
you
guys,
and
maybe
this
is
a
problem
that
you
haven't
set
out
to
solve,
and
maybe
it's
not
the
problem
you
want
to
solve,
but
I'll
just
mention
that
sometimes
it
is
a
problem.
Could.
F
Z
Do
you
it
when
we
list
our
membership
in
or-
and
we
do
have
certain
memberships,
so
I'm
think
about
the
ITU
in
particular,
but
I'm
sure
there's
would
come
up
with
other
organizations
as
well.
Who
is
it
that
they're
addressing
and
just
make
sure
you're
thinking
about
that
use
cases
you're,
drawing
this
out
or
not
and
explicitly
rule
it
out
as
out
of
scope?
But
you
know,
whichever
you
choose
choose
well.
L
Ted
Hardy
I
came
up
with
two
comments,
apparently
and
now.
I
have
three.
The
first
of
this
is
I've,
been
the
organizational
member
representative
for
I
suck
three
times
now
for
Qualcomm
Panasonic
and
now
Google
in
every
single
one
of
them.
This
sort
of
detail
would
have
mattered.
What
this
says
about
the
executive
management
of
those
companies
I
leave
is
an
exercise
to
the
reader.
L
L
A
type
1
and
Alice
II
would
have
been
yeah
we're
all
engineers
in
those
companies.
Just
trust
me.
It's
the
manager
down
to
the
core,
but
the
the
second
piece
was
to
respond
to
Eliot
a
little
bit.
Many
of
those
Isaac
relationships
that
with
I,
ISO
or
ITU,
would
be
extraordinarily
difficult
to
move
because
the
they
are
not
given
out
easily
or
without
a
good
amount
of
explanation.
So
I
hope
that
none
of
this
will
cause
us
to
change
those
relationships
and
they
can
remain
invested
in
aiesec
in
either
of
these,
given
the
subsidiary
nature.
C
C
Alisa,
did
you
want
it?
Okay?
So
yes,
if
you
had
to
choose
between
these
two
options
and
obviously
if
you
don't
feel
that
you
can
at
this
time,
don't
hum
either
way,
but
if
you
had
to
choose
between
the
type
one
supporting
organization
and
the
LLC
that'll,
be
your
next
hum
if
you
believe
that
the
proper
direction
for
us
is
to
go
with
the
type
one
supporting
organization.
Please
now.
C
C
V
C
Q
I
just
want
to
be
clear:
lega
I
know
nobody
wants
this
like
sprung
on
them,
like
it
sucks
to
have
to
sit
here
for
a
few
minutes
and
give
people
time
to
read,
but
I
also
felt
like
if
I
send
this
to
the
list
ahead
of
time,
then
people
would
have
felt
like
this
was
completely
getting
ahead
of
the
whole
discussion.
So
that's
why
it
is
being
sprung
upon
people
right
now.
Perhaps
we
should
give
people
a
few
minutes
just
to
read.
C
The
verse
that's
on
the
screen
is
actually
I'm
sure,
pretty
close
to
to
open,
walk
and
again
we're
not
going
to
like
take
a
home
on
the
term.
Probably
the
shirt
X
today
right,
let's
our
yes,
so
this
is
just
kind
of
informational.
This
is
what
will
be
circulated
around
the
list,
but
definitely
people
want
to
react
to
this
or
talk
about
okay.
Thank
you.
C
Next
page,
it's
two
pages:
this
shows
the
work
we
put
into
this
people
they're,
not
just
one
page.
You
get
two
for
the
price
of
one.
So,
as
you
see,
the
main
deliverable
will
be
a
document
that
obsoletes
be
CP
101
that
little
bold
text.
There
is
the
important
thing
to
to
take
into
account-
and
this
was
the
last
minute
hacked
to
for
our
consensus,
to
show
the
community
is
elected
to
create
a
limited
liability
corporation.
That
is
a
disregarded
entity
of
I
sock.
C
O
Q
O
AD
L
F
Q
L
So,
just
as
a
as
a
query
you
currently
have,
in
parallel
the
legal
documents
necessary
to
establish
the
LLC
will
be
developed
outside
the
working
group.
With
the
support
of
legal
counsel.
These
documents
will
not
be
the
products
of
the
working
group,
but
this
working
group
will
be
the
venue
where
these
documents
will
be
presented
to
the
ietf
community
for
review
and
discussion
before
they
are
finalized.
L
Is
it
not
the
intent
to
publish
these
documents
in
RFC
format
at
all,
because
we
could,
for
the
purposes
of
history,
write
them
into
an
RFC
as,
for
example,
the
the
appendix
of
the
updates
to
PCP
101?
That
isn't
a
requirement,
but
it's
also
not
a
silly
thing
to
do,
and
we
might
therefore
consider
leaving
it
up
to
the
working
group
to
decide
whether
those
were
documented
by
the
working
group
in
that
forum
or
not.
Can.
Y
Lesley
Daigle
I
think
I
had
more
or
less
assumed
they
would
be
published
as
our
C's,
but
I
totally
agree
that
they
are
not
a
work
item
of
this
working
group,
because
the
working
group
is
not
going
to
have
a
decision
over
the
content
of
the
documents.
So
I
think
it's
a
separable
problem.
I
think
it's
worth
noting
that
they
will
or
should
be
published
as
RFC
s,
but
not
a
work
item
I'll.
Q
Just
say
because
we
have
this
experience
a
little
bit
with
our
favorite
document,
that
Eliot
wrote
for
the
IANA
transition,
which
is
that
when
you
send
a
document
through
the
IETF
process,
which
is
not
intended
to
have
consensus
and
actually
cannot
change
by
the
IETF
process,
then
you
actually
devalue
the
IETF
process
a
little
bit.
Even
if
it's,
even
if
it's
gonna
have
a
disclaimer
on
it.
That
says
it
doesn't
have
consensus
of
the
IETF.
It's
like
I
just
likes
a
little
bit
makes
me
a
little
queasy
if.
AG
This
is
just
a
for
the
historical
record.
We
put
these
into
72
column
ascii,
like
someone
can
do
that
after
the
point,
but
remember
the
ITF
will
not
have
changed
control
of
these
documents
right,
there's
all
kinds
of
questions,
that's
gonna
raise
about
the
stream
and
anything
else
this
is
like.
This
is
like
a.
This
is
a
just
a
hair
ball
of
junk
that
we
can
all
debate
as
engineers
forever.
This
is
the
biggest
bike
shed
rat
hole.
I've
ever
encountered,
I.
L
C
C
Q
It's
on
the
list
now
I'll
probably
send
a
follow-up
email
from
people
who
are
in
this
room
because
it
doesn't
have
any
context
around
like
what
is
this,
but
I
think
give
it
a
small
amount
of
time
on
the
list
for
people
to
bat
it
around
a
few
weeks
and
then
I
will
get
it
in
shape
for
internal
review.
That
would
be
my
plan.
Any
objections
to
that
plan
and
in
parallel
the
I
will
start
working
with
all
of
our
legal
friends
on
and
our
friends
that
I
saw
on
the
actual
legal
work.