►
From YouTube: IETF99-IASA20-20170718-1550
Description
IASA20 meeting session at IETF99
2017/07/18 1550
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/99/proceedings/
A
A
This
is
what
we
plan
to
do
today.
We're
gonna
have
the
design
team
and
the
foreman
Brian
I
believe,
give
us
a
report.
I'm
sorry,
not
on
the
workshop,
but
actually
on
the
on
the
document.
You
can
see
what
I
can
apply.
Is
this
agenda
slide
from
and
following
that
we're
gonna?
Have
a
bit
of
discussion
focused
again
on
whether
or
not
the
identified
possible
paths
forward
seemed
like
the
right
set
for
us
to
choose
from
to
make
sure
the
options
are
properly
articulated,
and
that
is
our
plan.
A
A
B
B
B
So
what
we're
going
to
do
is
we're
going
to
I'm
going
to
spend
about
maybe
15,
no
more
than
20
minutes
talking
about
the
document
and
we're
gonna
open
everything
up
for
for
discussions.
I
think
this
is
going
to
be
much
more
better
than
an
interactive
session
than
me
sitting
up
here,
telling
you
what
we
wrote
and
why
we
haven't
written
something
else.
B
So
what
we're
gonna
do
is
gonna,
basically
just
go
over
some
status
and
what
feedback
we're
actually
looking
for
on
this
document
go
over
some
of
the
high-level
descriptions
of
the
options
that
the
design
team
came
up
with
and
go
over
a
little
bit
at
a
very
high
level.
The
feedback
we
received
so
far.
B
So
we
clearly
for
those
of
you
who
have
read
this
document.
We
don't
have
fully
specified
options
just
yet.
We
have
three
high
level
views
of
what
we
think
could
happen,
but
we
definitely
have
not
done
much
in
a
way
of
a
deep
analysis
of
any
of
them
or
really
come
up
with
a
other.
You
know
viable
options,
so
that's
one
thing
to
revealing
for
here
is:
do
you
have
other
options
that
we
need
to
consider
as
far
as
the
feedback
you
know
other
than
those
cop
level
options?
B
What
kind
of
factors
should
we
be
putting
into
that
to
the
option
assessment
perspective?
If,
if
we
have
factors
that
we're
not
aware
of,
then
you
know,
people
are
going
to
start
questioning.
Why
we're
picking
certain
things
and
I
know
that
some
people
have
brought
some
up,
but
we
need
to
hear
as
much
as
we
can.
This
meeting
is
not
about
picking
one
of
the
options
now.
B
B
The
first
thing
I'm
going
to
cover
is
the
basically
sent
you
a
possible
areas
of
reorganizations,
and
we
have
some
information
pulled
out
of
the
out
of
the
document
for
each
of
these
organizational
structures,
the
big
one,
that's
where
we
spent
most
of
our
time,
not
only
because
it's
what
what
I
see
is
more
the
more
complex
vector,
but
it's
also
the
one
that
has
the
most
effect
on
the
on
these
other
areas
of
reorganization
oversight,
staffing
and
the
relationship
to
I
stock
I'll
play
back
into
how
we
decide.
We
want
to
structure
ourselves.
B
So,
for
those
of
you
have
not
read
the
document,
we
came
up
with
three
potential
options:
the
first
one
we
referred
to,
as
is
a
plus
plus
the
second
one,
is
as
an
eye
sock,
subsidiary
and
the
third
one
as
an
independent
organization.
So
if
anybody
has
other
options
that
you
think
we
need
to
consider
it
we'd
love
to
hear
it.
B
The
first
one
I
asked
the
plus
plus
is
pretty
straightforward
from
from
an
understanding
perspective,
essentially
the
structural
relationship
that
we
have
with
AI
sock
stays
the
same.
I
socks
go,
maintains
all
the
funds
in
contracting
authority
on
behalf
the
idea
and
all
the
I
ask
the
staff
would
be
I
sock
employees.
B
We
could
potentially
eliminate
the
IAO
c--
and
replace
it
with
the
board
of
directors
that
has
you
know
different
aspects
that
we
have
to
consider
in
and
of
itself
and
and
then
we
have
to
deal
with.
You
know
what
does
the
straight
of
staff?
What
authority
did
they
hold
with
with
relations
to
decision-making
authority,
both
from
a
either
a
tactical
or
strategic
decision?
Point
in
the
third
one,
for
the
most
part,
looks
relatively
similar
to
the
eye
sock
subsidiary.
B
If
that
is
now
a
separate
nonprofit
organization,
so
we
would
then
again
have
our
own
bylaws
and
bank
accounts
and
charters
and
boards,
and
all
that
other
fun
stuff
administrative
stuff
would
still
be
done
with
with
the
contractors
to
hold
to
hold
the
do
all
the
heavy
lifting
for
that.
The
one
thing
that
came
up
was
is
now
we'd
have
notional
responsibilities
within
the
administrative
staff,
or
not
only
administration
parts,
but
also
the
fundraising
communications
and
personnel
decisions.
B
In
those
other
vectors
of
reorganization,
I
just
pulled
together
a
couple
of
quick
points,
just
to
kind
of
highlight
where,
where
things
could
possibly
go
with
oversight
that
really
ties
back
into
what
the
relationship
is
with
I
sock,
it
also
effects.
You
know
what
the
oversight
body
does
with
respect
to
administrative
decision
making,
and
it
would
also
require
some
level
of
defining
what
that
IETF
community
interface
looks
like
on
the
staffing
side.
Our
view
is
that
the
staff
side
is
going
to
need
to
increase
in
some
form
or
fashion
in
order
to
handle.
B
Some
of
the
things
that
we
came
up
with
when
we
were
going
through
these
options.
The
way
we
would
treat
some
of
these
things
changes
based
on
what
option
we
go
down,
so
whether
we're
transferring
intellectual
property
between
eye
sock
and
some
other
entity
same
thing
with
contract
with
existing
either
existing
or
new
contracts.
B
If
we're
anything
other
than
I
asked
a-plus-plus,
we
would
have
to
try
and
figure
out
what
the
what
the
transfer
of
funds
would
look
like
and
across
all
those
options.
One
of
the
things
that
I
think
is
is
very
important.
That
needs
to
be
stressed
is,
is
how
do
we
structure
the
interface
with
with
the
ietf
community?
We
need
to
make
sure
that
we're
making
things
as
tranh
transparent
as
possible,
where
we
can
and
making
sure
that
we're
getting
the
input
in
that
we
need.
B
B
B
Some
of
the
feedback
or
feedback
on
options
really
kind
of
ties
back
into
what
the
analysis
we
would
need
to
do
in
order
to
make
these
these
options
of
viable
candidates
to
consider.
We
know
that
they
were
missing
a
bunch
of
information
that
we're
going
to
have
to
dig
into,
but
this
all
so
ties
back
into.
You
know
what
kinds
of
factors
do
we
need
to
include
in
the
assessment
of
these
options
and
I.
Think
a
lot
of
the
feedback
on
this
option
will
help
with
that.
But
you
know
we
need
more.
B
As
far
as
the
IOC
goes,
we
understand
that
there
are
going
to
be
changes
or
need
to
be
changed
as
to
how
decisions
are
made
and
a
lot
of
the
comments
that
we
received
on
this
essentially
discuss
some
of
those
aspects
that
would
need
to
tie
back
into
what
the
decision-making
process
looks
like
who
gets
to
say
what?
When
and
we
need
to
make
sure
that
we
clean
that
up,
and
then
we
had
some
other
more
generic
feedback.
You
know
either
talking
on
transparency
issues.
B
Member
selection,
we
touched
on
a
little
bit
because,
as
we
were
looking
at
different
options,
you
know
we
were
talking
about
Board
of
Directors
or
oversight
committees,
and
what
were
the
skill
sets?
We
were
going
to
need.
Those
kinds
of
things
are
really
gonna
have
to
be
ironed
out
and
whether
or
not
they
actually
fall
into
our
current
model
for
selecting
people,
it's
probably
a
big
question
that
needs
to
be
dealt
with.
B
B
So
I
I
think
the
best
way
to
do
this
is
just
kind
of
open
up
the
mics.
Before
for
people
to
start,
you
know
putting
forth
the
comments
and
suggestions
that
they
might
have
that
that
they
want
to
open.
They
want
to
discuss
in
an
open
forum.
I
think
that's
going
to
help
the
design
team
the
most,
because
we
need
to
get
some
input
on
on
what
our
next
steps
are
going
to
be.
C
Geordie
palette
I
read
the
document
when
it
was
published,
so
probably
a
forgot
if
what
I
am
going
to
mention
is,
is
already
considered
in
the
document.
But
in
my
opinion,
one
of
the
risk
of
being
an
independent
entity
is
that
we
will
depend
directly
on
sponsors,
which
typically
may
be
big
operators
or
big
vendors
and
I
am
not
sure.
If
that
that's
good
for
being
an
independent
standard
organization,
I
think
it's
it's
risky.
I
have
been
thinking
the
last
week
since,
since
I
read
the
document
and
I
send
my
inputs
today
to
the
list.
B
So
I'll
say
two
things.
The
first
one
is
is
that
you
know
we
were
taking
into
consideration
some
of
the
other
comments
that
people
have
made
about.
You
know
what
are
the
implications
of
of
different
funding
models
and
I.
Think
that's
gonna
be
one
of
the
important
factors
is
to
you
know
how
we,
how
we
actually
assess
these
different
options,
but.
A
We
don't
really
want
to
have
a
discussion
here
today
about
which
of
these
options
is
better
I.
Guess
that
let
please,
let's
just
try
to
keep
this
particulate
in
what
the
options
are
and
kind
of.
If
we've
got
them
right
and
what
are
the
aspects
of
these
options?
We
need
to
better
articulate
in
order
to
make
a
decision.
D
Bob
Dean
didn't
there's
not
a
little
different
tack
than
which
already
said
so
I
view
the
ITF.
It's
a
volunteer
organization,
largely
you
know.
We
have
one
full-time
staff
member.
We
have
lots
of
contractors,
but
all
that
you
know
the
whole
standards
process
and
the
IOC
and
the
trust
are
all
volunteers.
One
thing
that
the
document
doesn't
discuss
and
I
think
it
should
is
some
of
the
the
alternative.
D
D
Like
they
do,
but
I
think
it
is
something
you
know,
I
think
that's
another
factor
to
consider
when
you
go,
you
know
go
from
having
a
you
know,
fiduciary
board
that
you
know
is
responsible
for
the
money
and
you
know
it's
going
to
change.
I,
think
it
will
change
the
nature
of
the
ITF,
alot
and
I.
Think
that's
something
you
need
to
sort
of
you
know
examine
in
you
know
in
this
work
can.
A
D
I
mean
so
it
talks
about
having
the
staff
make
most
of
the
decisions
for
things
and
only
and
having
the
you
know
what
we
call
the
IOC,
which
it
sort
of
complains
about,
has
gotten
too
much
into
the
operational
decisions
to
you
know
to
having
a
board.
That's
only
looking
at
this
strategic
view,
so
a
lot
of
things
that
I
think
the
ITF
will
care
about
will
start
to
be
decisions
made
by
staff
and
it
at
least
that's
what
I
read
the
way.
D
Think
those
decisions
are
largely
made
by
the
IOC
and
the
larger
community,
so
they're
they're
not
they're,
not
made
but
they're,
not
all
driven
the
staff
executes.
What
IOC
says
to
do
and
I
think
this
is
proposing
to
some
of
the
alternatives
are
proposing
to
go
to
a
model
where
staff
makes
more
of
these
decisions.
So.
B
Okay,
so
so
one
of
the
aspects
that
that
we
did
discuss
is
what
are
the
trade-offs
between
operational
decisions
and
strategic
decisions
and
I.
Think
that's
where
we
would
have
to
decide.
What
does
what
does
the
oversight
for
those
decisions
look
like
and
what
would
the
mechanism
be
for
us
identifying
the
what
would
be
considered
operational
versus
strategic
and
I?
Think
that's
where
you
get
into
you
know:
how
does
that
affect
the
ietf
of
the
whole.
F
Dead-Set
Rd
so
two
questions,
one
of
which
is
really
to
the
chair,
because
I
made
this
mistake
on
the
the
mailing
list
once
before
and
I
want
to
be
clear
today.
My
understanding
of
what
we're
doing
today
is
we're
giving
feedback
to
the
design
team,
and
that
means
that
we're
still
in
the
first
design
team
phase
of
the
the
set
of
steps
that
was
laid
out
in
URIs
theme
and
some
later
point
we'll
get
to
the
later
steps,
including
the
working
group,
etc.
So
just
want
to
be
clear
that
that's
where
we
are.
F
That
is
my
understanding.
Yes,
okay,
thank
you
very
much
for
that
clarification,
I
I
kind
of
got
that
from
previous
statements,
but
it
would
be
nice
to
have
it
laid
out.
The
second
point
I
wanted
to
make
actually
goes
back
to
the
the
issue
I
raised
on
the
mailing
list,
which
is
in
a
lot
of
cases.
All
of
these
are
workable.
If
you
have
people
in
place,
who's
kind
of
training
and
experience
gives
them
the
ability
to
work
at
this
oversight
level,
as
opposed
to
the
operational
executive
level
right.
F
So
a
lot
of
the
issues
that
have
come
up
in
in
people's
discussion
have
been
that
certain
groups,
like
dia
OSI,
have
become
much
more
operationalized,
much
more
acting
as
an
executive
committee,
rather
than
an
oversight,
committee
and
I.
Think
I
and
some
other
folks
said
that
that
may
be
because
of
who
the
pool
of
people
you're.
Drawing
on
like
myself.
You
end
up
in
this
as
a
as
a
consequence
of
a
different
role
and
your
your
natural
tendency
is
to
kind
of
dive
in
and
and
follow
some
process
that
was
laid
out.
F
F
Now
you
you
run
the
risk
of
kind
of
operating
on
hope
rather
than
strategy,
and
we
can
certainly
hope
that
having
these
other
structures
attracts
the
other
kind
of
person
into
it
or
enables
that
kind
of
recruitment,
but
hope
is
not
really
a
strategy
and
I.
Unless
that
we
can
come
up
with
kind
of
a
a
recruitment
strategy
that
goes
along
with
the
structure.
I
think
our
work
isn't
really
done
and
I
would
be
kind
of
unhappy.
F
B
F
G
Leslie
Nagel
and
just
to
follow
on
to
it
Ted
said
I
was
involved
in
the
hiring
or
the
first
IAD
and
I
now
find
myself
involved
in
the
hiring
of
the
interim
IAD
and
I
can
tell
you
that,
having
a
much
clearer
articulation
of
what
the
job
actually
is,
which
we
didn't
entirely
have
in
2005
2004
and
also
some
sense
of
where
to
advertise.
It
has
yielded
much
more
focused
results
from
the
search
then
than
otherwise
so
I.
Think
that's
an
excellent
point,
but
I
actually
stood
up
here
to
say
is
mostly
as
an
individual.
G
There
are
aspects
of
this
that
I
think
we
need
to
keep
in
mind,
including
what
problem
are
we
trying
to
solve?
I
think
we
haven't
been
clear
in
stepping
away
from
trying
to
define
the
fall
problems
that
we
haven't
been
clear
about
what
problem
we
think
individual
directions
solve
for
the
is
a
plus
plus
stuff.
G
For
instance,
there
are
if
we,
there
are
aspects
of
trying
to
run
our
business
as
something
tightly
coupled
with
ice
hawks
business
that
constrain
us,
for
instance,
for
fiduciary
for
natural
fiduciary
reasons,
our
contracting
processes
have
to
line
up
with
and
be
reviewed
by,
I
sock,
which
is
in
fact
cause.
Some
I
won't
say
issues
but
has
been
less
than
perfectly
optimal
at
times.
G
So
my
chief
point
here
is
to
say,
I,
think
one
of
the
problems
we're
trying
to
solve
and
not
pursuing
I
ask
the
+
boss
would
be
if
we
think
we
have
a
need
to
be
independent
in
our
own
administrative
functions.
It's
not
just
that.
Do
I,
like
this
format,
I
like
that
form,
I
think
we
do
need
to
stay
focused
on
in
terms
of
the
split
of
responsibilities
which
we
still
haven't
quite
articulated.
Clearly,
the
split
of
responsibilities
between
oversight
versus
the
strategic
long-term
perspective
of
where
is
is
the
IDF
going
drafting.
G
So
I
guess.
To
sum
up,
it's
badly
made
comment
and
you
need
to
sum
up.
I
think
that
we
need
to
articulate
more
of
the
problem
solved
by
the
different
models,
because
not
just
to
see
if
the
model
will
solve
those
problems,
but
also
at
the
end
of
the
day.
The
only
reason
for
they
I
to
have
to
make
any
changes
is
if
the
community
sees
that
there
are
problems
and
believes
that
we
can
solve
them
through
one
path
or
another.
H
H
So
we
have
to
really
look
at
the
how
to
change
the
culture,
not
just
how
to
change
the
organizational
structure
and,
as
a
matter
of
fact,
what
I
would
actually
say
that
I
would
first
look
at
what
can
be
what
actually,
which
of
those
targets
that
you
have
really
do
need
changes
in
the
organizational
structure
which
can
be
done
in
the
current
structure,
changing
some
of
procedures
and
processes,
and
maybe
through
this
also
look
at
the
kind
of
like
whatever
is
the
end
goal.
Then
look
at
a
transition
plan
as
well.
H
If
most
probably
you're
not
going
to
do
in
one
go
go
to
if
you
would
decide
or
if
we
would
decide
to
go
to
an
independent
organization,
we
most
probably
wouldn't
do
that
in
one
go.
There
are
examples
of
organizations
just
us,
for
instance
the
Linux
Foundation
that
has
projects
underneath
it
that
some
of
them
are
incorporated
and
they
have
a
real
board
and
they
have
been
organizations
underneath
that,
and
then
they
have
organizations
that
are
actually
not
incorporated
that
work
exactly
the
same
way
legally.
H
They
are
not
the
same,
but
as
kind
of
like
as
you're
part
of
that
organization.
It
looks
the
same
way.
The
board
looks
the
same,
even
if
the
other
one
is
called
a
governing
board
and
the
other
one
is
actually
a
real
board.
So,
looking
at
some
of
these
things,
what
can
you
do
without
actually
organizational
changes
but
changes
actually
in
the
procedures?
How
to
do
things
I
think
is,
and
could
be
a
good
task
to
do.
B
I'm
gonna
make
you
stay
up
there
for
a
second.
So
what
what
I
hear
you
saying
kind
of
echoes
things
that
I've
heard
from
I
believe
at
least
three
other
people
on
a
mailing
list
and
that
you
think
that
we
should
focus
more
on
the
problem
statement
and
the
goals
first
and
just
for
the
most
part
ignore
the
the
potential
solutions
and
the
analysis
of
those
well
is
the.
H
My
point
is:
maybe
that
the
kind
of
legal
structure
of
IETF
might
not
actually
be
a
solution
that
maybe
just
parcel
thing
of
the
solution,
or
that
might
be
an
inspiration
that
we
want
to
do
regardless.
What
is
the
solution
to
solve
some
of
those
problems?
So
if
you
look
at
the,
for
instance,
the
role
clarity
between
Ice,
Hawk
and
IETF,
what
you
have
I
think
that's
your
target
number
one
in
your
document
that
has
nothing
to
do
with
the
legal
structure
that
can
be
solved
without
solving
the
legal
structure.
H
Of
course,
it
can
bring
even
more
clarity
if
you
have
completely
different
legal
entities,
but
for
most
part,
that
target
can
be
solved
without
a
having
a
legal
structure.
So
I
think
that
a
little
bit,
what
Ted
said
is
that
you
might
be
looking
at
the
legal
structure
as
and
kind
of
like
as
a
solution.
I,
don't
believe
that
by
itself
is
a
solution.
The
solutions
have
to
found
be
found
as
somewhere
else
and
legal
structure
might
be,
then
part
of
solution.
H
If
we
cannot,
if
we
want
to
move
to
that
direction,
for
some
other
reason
or
we
cannot
achieve
something
in
the
current
structure
but
by
itself
by
alone,
it's
not
a
solution
and
like
Ted
said
it's
just
hope
that
things
will
change.
If
we
change
the
kind
of
legal
nature
of
the
organization
and
that's
not
a
strategy,
that's
a
hope.
I
do
you
agree
with
Ted
there,
though,
that
I've
always
thought
that
hope
was
a
strategy
and
I'm
quite
disappointed
that,
and
that
might
actually
explain
why
my
things
haven't
really
gone,
that
well
always.
Okay,.
I
Hi,
just
picking
up
a
few
things
that
I
heard
people
say
so
yeah
Ted,
as
you
asked
first
row
very
much
in
early
stages,
figure
out
like
how
to
deal
with
this,
and
so
I'm
fully
be
making
more
meetings
like
this,
whether
it
turns
into
working
group
or
some
other
structure.
There's
gonna
be
like
a
lot
of
times.
It's
a
complain
about
what
other
things
we've
done
or
recommending.
I
certainly
agree
that,
like
structure
alone
is
not
enough
and
will
need
to
work
with
the
right
people
on
my
desk.
I
One
thing
that
I
that
I,
like
I,
think
you
hear
from
people
about
is
that
may
mean
bringing
in
people
to
run
set
board
who
are
not
traditionally
I
Jeffers,
because
the
other
people
have
experience
or
anything
I
found
before
it's
often
a
lot.
I
Jefferson
I'd
be
nursing
hearing
a
lot
about
that,
as
you
know,
or
people
comfortable
with
that
as
part
of
that
part
of
the
next
of
the
board
and
the
and
apparently
and
I
am
making
an
exciting
one,
always
plenty
of
where
I
started.
Talking
I
thought
brandy.
I
So
so
I
guess
that's
one
thing.
The
I
think
the
interesting
for
us
to
hear
about
on
the
other
thing
as
Bob
you
mentioned,
you
know,
concerns
about
staff,
doing
more
decision-making,
I
mean
I,
certainly,
I've
done
working
to
b3c
and
I.
Think
I
think
our
model
works
better,
but
your
hand
there
are
things
and
I
think
I
would
be
comfortable
with
a
staff,
be
more
decision-making
about
and
and
less
fell
into.
Your
work
is
in
some
cases
you
know
some
things,
we've
done
in
the
past.
I
I
In
order
to
get
like
what
we
wanted
a
faster
time
scale,
it
would
mean,
brings
those
people
in
houses,
that
of
volunteers
who
are
yester
people
or
whatever
so
I'm
interested
in
hearing
what
things
pacifically
people
concerned
about
having
own
staff
staff
versus
volunteers
do
and
things
that
I
think
might
be
red
lines
that
they
really
wouldn't
want.
You
know
staff
to
do.
I.
Think
my
red
line
definitely
is
not
having
any
involvement
whatsoever
in
the
developer
of
the
centers
themselves.
I
think
that's
like
clearly
like
something
we
we've
never
done.
I
J
Reflecting
for
John
cleansin
following
up
on
several
recent
comments,
I
think
the
most
frequent
difficulty
with
is
ax
/ia
OC
so
far
has
been
lack
of
transparency
to
the
community
and
the
appearance
of
making
strategic
decisions
for
the
community
rather
than
focusing
on
determining
reflecting
community
consensus.
Perhaps
others
don't
care,
but
if
we
do,
then
we
should
be
concentrating
on
changes
that
would
fix
or
improve
on
that
problem
and
then
evaluate
proposed
solutions
on
the
basis
of
how
they
would
improve
or
pesum
eyes
things.
Some
of
that
reinforces
Johnny's
Yanni's
comments.
Of
course,.
K
Randy
Bush,
my
first
reaction
is
I'm,
a
boy
change.
Oh
no
I
think
up
leveling
we're
a
problem
where
we're
at
an
intersection
of
understanding
our
own
culture
and
the
shibboleths
between
worship.
You
know
transparency,
openness
and
I'd
like
to
remind
us
of
technical
correctness
and
elegance
and
excellence,
and
the
ability
to
handle
running
a
small
business.
That's
an
unusual
intersection,
as
we
have
proof
of
concept,
we're
not
very
good
at
it.
K
When
I
look
around
of
the
legs
of
the
stool,
we
propose
to
stand
on
the
only
one
that
seems
to
have
that
intersection.
Strangely
enough,
even
though
well
let
me
back
up
said
I
have
an
instinct
again,
so
we
should
have
internally
a
staff
that
we
pay
etc
because
the
minute
you
bring
employees
and
money
and
it
changes
the
game.
Okay.
But
when
I
look
around
to
the
legs
of
the
stool,
we
stand
on,
Io,
see
I
saw,
etc.
K
The
one
that
seems
to
have
the
largest
intersection
of
cultural
clue.
An
ability
to
administrate
is
the
Secretariat
and
I'm
really
cheered.
By
seeing
whoever
and
however
he
people
made
the
decision
to
park
things
at
the
Secretariat
for
the
moment,
because
then
I
don't
have
to
think
about
it
and
how
we
go
forward,
I
think
it's
a
really
tough
thing
to
find
that
intersection,
we're
clearly
not
good
at
it,
and
I
saw
it
clearly
doesn't
get
the
culture.
L
Tobias
Khan
room:
is
he
head
off?
So
this
is
really
just
my
personal
things,
so
so,
regarding
this
legal
structure
and
like
behavior
I've
been
on
a
couple
of
courts,
be
it
nonprofit
or
commercial,
and
the
structure
really
is
fairly
this
decoupled.
So,
like
boy
I
have
seen
same
structure,
same
legal
structure,
appoint
totally
different
culture
about
how
these
operate,
and
it's
very
much
more
about
the
description
of
the
role
and
how
they
interact
with
each
other,
and
then
the
practice
stayed
alive.
L
How
you
behave
a
support,
that's
shaping
that
the
legal
structure
has
very
tiny
influence,
at
least
in
my
humble
experience,
and
that
kind
of
leads
to
the
point
with
the
interfaces.
So
when
you
change,
when
you
change
our
expectation,
how
operate
that
actually
needs
to
be
reflected
in
the
interfaces
that
the
IOC
is
talking
with,
be
it
the
IAD
Fiat
I
sock
via
the
committee's,
and
it's
just
changing
one
doesn't
help
you
actually
need.
This
needs
to
be
reflected
that
this
capability
is
mapping.
L
So
if
you
want
to
have
more
oversight,
that
means
behavior
of
the
other
interfaces
needs
to
also
change
and
last
but
not
least
so
this
question
about
staff,
IOC
and
community.
So
if
we
want
to
hand
over
more
act,
action
to
the
staff,
more
decisions,
I
think
John
cleansing
channel
this
from
jabber
like
today.
L
There
is
this
concern
that
the
IOC
is
already
taking
too
much
decisions,
I'm
not
quite
sure
how
this
will
play
out
if
we
delegate
more
to
the
staff
so
I'm,
actually
in
favor
of
that,
but
it
will
also
mean
that
the
community
needs
to
recognize
that,
and
probably
we
need
to
recognize
that
we
have
more
hands-off.
That's
just
like
my
humble
feedback.
M
Brian
Rosen
I
have
two
points:
I
had
a
coward
conversation
on
the
subject
is
I
think
many
of
us
have
and
my
my
initial
leaning
was
towards
not
changing,
structure
much
because
I
mostly
fear
what
the
consequences
will
be,
and
we
know
what
we've
got
now
and
I'd
rather
improve
what
we
have
and
start
over
again.
But
there's
one
thing
that
said
that
that
the
person
I
was
talking
to
you
said
that
did
strike
me
and
I'm
gonna
preface
this
by
saying
it
doesn't
apply
in
the
current
circumstances,
but
we
can't
fire
the
IID.
M
M
The
other
thing
that
I
wanted
to
come
up
and
talk
about
is
that
I
I
think
that
the
marketing
problem
and
generating
more
income
is
most,
unfortunately,
a
job
that
needs
the
right
person
more
than
it
needs
the
right
organization.
I
have
been
in
part
of
another
organization
that
is
so
different
from
this.
It's
amazing,
and
yet
has
so
strikingly
the
same
problem
with
the
same
results
and
the
same
attempts
at
fixing
it.
M
They
keep
thinking
that
if
they
change
the
organization
that
they'll
figure
out
a
way,
that
organization
will
figure
out
a
way
to
raise
the
kind
of
money
that
they
need
in
order
to
succeed,
and
the
only
thing
that
actually
worked
was
funding
the
right
guy,
who
turned
out
to
be
somebody
that
the
organization
itself
doesn't
really
like,
but
he's
real
successful
at
doing
what
he
does
and
their
problem
is
on
their
way
to
getting
fixed
and
I
fear
that
we're,
maybe
fear,
is
the
wrong.
Word.
M
I,
think
that
we
may
have
to
deal
with
that
issue
very
directly.
We
need
to
get
somebody
who's,
a
real
marketing
guy,
who
spends
a
lot
of
time,
making
lots
of
promises
and
saying
the
right
things
and
blah
blah
blah.
Blah
and
engineers
are
really
really
bad
at
this.
But
if
we
wanted
to
succeed,
we'll
have
to
find
the
right
staff
to
do
it.
M
A
M
M
Identifying
the
person
yeah
I
think
we
might
have
a
problem
identifying
the
right
person,
but
I
and
I.
Guess
that's
yes.
How
would
we
do
that
I,
don't
know.
I
mean
I,
think
that
that
we
have
a
better
shot
at
somehow
stumbling
in
to
the
right
person
than
we
do
at
making
it
work
any
other
way.
I'll
say
that
okay.
N
Yeah
speaking
as
an
individual,
even
though
I'm
a
member
of
the
design
team
as
well,
so
the
comments
about
the
culture
versus
or
the
culture
being
more
significant
than
maybe
the
legal
structure-
oh
of
course,
spot-on.
I
I
do
want
to
know
that,
like
when
we
were
thinking
about
these
things,
there's
actually
multiple
dimensions.
So
as
an
example,
whether
we
do
more
operational
type
of
board
versus
strategic
board
that
that's
a
it's
a
cultural
thing,
but
but
that's
a
choice
of
the
tasks
that
they
have.
N
N
You
would
take
us
long
way
into
having
a
functional,
better
functional
boards
and
structures
in
place,
and
the
other
thing
is
that
Ted
mentioned
this
whole
aspect
of
I
mean
we
can
hope
to
find
find
those
people,
but
I,
think
we
also
need
to
sort
of
realistically
look
at
the
current
system
and
sort
of
assess
how
you
know
you
know
freezes.
If
we
operate
on
an
operational
basis.
Do
we
actually
have
people
that
that
have
the
kind
of
time
that
doing
that
properly?
N
It
needs
and
I
think
that
the
answer,
at
least
in
my
experience,
has
been
that
we
don't
always
have
because
the
board
members
just
don't
have
the
time
to
to
deal
with
all
the
operational
issues.
So
it's
not
a
necessarily
very
well
working
system
at
this
point
because
of
the
confusion
and
then
lack
of
ability
to
get
the
people
who
would
actually
have
time.
O
No
telecom
I
need
you
I'm
chairing
the
ISO
board,
but
this
is
not
my
comment
actually
just
to
I
mean
with
the
goal
of
making
the
analysis
in
document
clear
or
more
complete.
I
just
want
to
restate
a
comment
that
Kathy
made
last
time,
which
is
that
and
we
have
been
talking
to
her
in
our
weekly
calls
and-
and
she
has
mentioned
these
several
times
to
me
and
since
he's
not
here.
O
Let
me
let
me
make
this
comment,
which
is
that
she's
actually
surprised
that
he's
legally
responsible
and
she
has
to
sign
several
things
that
they
have
to
do
with
the
eye
here
she
doesn't
understand.
She
has
no
control
whatsoever
over
them
and
it's
a
bit
funny
to
her
right.
So
I
think
you
guys
should
talk
to
her
like
make
a
list
of
those
or
or
understand
what
they
are.
P
Rea
Pelletier
outgoing
IAD,
three
things
I
guess
be
CP
101
provides
that
the
IOC
can
hire
and
fire
the
IAD.
So
you
night,
if
can
the
ITF
takes
that
action?
This
is
an
advice
auction
that
song
is
just
an
accommodating
entity,
that's
doing
the
contracts,
the
employment
contracts.
Secondly,
I
think
it's
important
that,
whatever
the
oversight
body
is,
my
board
is
a
will
see
or
whatever
it
is,
that
has
cultural
clue.
P
It
isn't
open
to
a
you
know
a
lot
of
folks
doing
this
to
me.
If
you're
gonna
build
a
structure,
you
have
a
president
CEO
or
IAD
whatever
you
want
to
call
it,
and
that
person
is
responsible
for
doing
that
and
their
performance
is
based
upon
and
that
person
will
hire
and
fire
those
people
and
if
I
sock
might
be
the
accommodating
entity
that
writes
the
contracts
for
those,
but
it
would
be
that
person
responsible
and
has
ownership
for
that.
The
oversight
body
is
responsible.
P
P
Personally,
I
think
that
the
IFC,
you
should
be
in
a
position
where
it's
meeting
quarterly
not
not
once
a
month,
and
it
takes
up
those
issues
like
budget
policy
and
contract
awards
and
not
many
other
things
and
let
the
IAD
or
whoever
it
is
run
the
business
and
with
so
much
interest
and
involvement.
It
kind
of
takes
away
that
from
the
that
from
that
person,
the
feeling
that
they
really
do
own
that
and
can
run
that,
and
so
that's
alright.
Q
Hi
Jason,
loving
good
comments
or
personal,
not
as
a
member
of
the
design
team.
A
couple
things
to
point
out,
I
agree
that
the
need,
for
you
know
the
right
kind
of
marketing
person
will
be
important
and
that
might
be
a
marketing
guy
or
girl
we'll
see,
but
on
the
aspects
of
funding.
I
mean
I
think
that
the
cost
aspects
of
this
are
important
to
game
out
as
we
move
through
the
process
and
I
think
Bob
raised
that
on
the
mailing
list,
and
that
was
a
good
one.
Q
You
know,
if
you
look
at
it
really
based
on
the
membership
or
sponsorship
revenues
and
meeting
fees.
You
know
the
ITF
s,
you
know
standalone
entity
is
not
financially
sustainable.
You
know,
there's
no
other
way
to
say
that,
but
it
receives
an
annual
subsidy
from
the
Internet
Society
to
help
that
you
know
not
be
the
case
in
practice.
Now,
where
does
that
money
come
from?
A
Thank
you,
I
think
Brian.
You
could
probably
you
don't
need
to
stand
up
there
and
take
take
any
more
comments
to
this
particular
point,
but
I
do
want
to
make
sure
we
probably
have.
We
have
about
15
minutes
left
here
that
people
in
the
room
do
feel
like
of
the
set
of
identified
possible
paths
forward
that
are
in
the
document.
Does
it
seem
like
the
right
set?
Does
it
seem
of
the
things
that
are
obviously
missing,
or
there
are
the
lines
not
clearly
drawn
between
these?
A
F
I
think
that,
in
terms
of
options
not
considered,
there
are
a
whole
bunch
of
options
that
we
could
have
considered
that
clearly
had
pessimal
outcomes.
For
example
merger
with
some
other
standards
group
right,
you
could
have
put
down
we're
going
to
become
a
subsidiary
Society
of
X
and
pick
your
your
favorite
X.
You
probably
have
to
talk
to
X
it's
one
of
those
things
where
both
partners
have
to
agree
there,
but
but
this
is
the
kind
of
thing
that
that's
actually
not
considered
in
there
and
I'm
fine
with
that
right.
F
These
are
these
are
the
set
of
options
that
you
want
the
community
to
consider,
and
if
somebody
really
has
a
strong
feeling
that
we
ought
to
go
get
married,
they
ought
to
bring
the
bride
or
groom
whichever
it
may
be
to
us,
and
and
have
a
discussion
right,
not
not
up
to
the
thing,
but
I
do
think
we.
We
have
to
be
very
careful
in
looking
at
what
these
options
are,
because
they're
in
fact
ranges
within
each
of
these
options
that
are
substantially
different
and
so
do
I
think
this
is
the
right
class
of
options.
F
Sure
they're
kind
of
stay
where
we
are
and
get
better
kind
of,
become
slightly
different
within
our
our
current
organizational
home,
but
not
change
organizational
homes
become
independent
right,
but
that's
really
a
class
of
options,
not
an
option
in
and
of
itself
and
for
a
design
team
exercise.
If
that's
where
you
want
to
stop
I'm
fine
with
that
when
it
becomes
a
working
group
and
we
narrow
down
on
one
of
these
I'm
fine
with
that
being
where
we
do
that.
F
But
I
want
us
to
be
kind
of
careful
about
how
far
we
think
this
gets
us
to
even
to
pick
an
option
from
among
these
is
the
start
of
a
journey,
not
the
end
of
it
and
where
we
are
now
I
think
is
it's
an
okay
place
for
that
place
in
URIs
timeline?
But
I?
Don't
want
us
to
think
that?
Having
made
that
decision
that
these
are
the
right
classes
of
options
to
consider
that
were
much
further
along
than
the
beginning.
H
Yeah
young
learning
again
so
I
agree
with
what
Ted
said,
but
that
wasn't
really
why
I
came
here
for
so
yes,
I
think
these
are
the
possible
Bible
ways
forward
in
terms
of
a
legal
entity,
but
I.
Don't
think
that
these
are
solutions
to
the
problems
that
were
said
that
work
are
in
the
document.
I,
don't
think
that
saying
we
will
do
an
independent
entity,
for
instance,
will
solve
the
things
that
are
in
the
targets.
That's
I
think
that
work
is
still
to
be
done.
How
to
solve
those
issues.
H
The
the
kind
of
like
I
think
that
there's
at
least
a
potential
to
get
those
are
all
targets
within
any
of
these
and,
like
Ted
said,
then
there
are
subclasses
under
these
classes.
How
to
do
that
as
well.
So
it's
the
structure
is
so
your
shot
keep
on
showing
this
picture,
but
yes,
this
doesn't
that
none
of
those
three
things
actually
have
anything
to
do
with
this.
A
A
H
Transport,
this
right,
potentially
yes,
but
the
thing
is
basically,
if
you
take
an
independent
entity,
you
would
call
the
IOC
board
and
then
you
would
keep
everything
like
it
is.
You
would
have
the
same
mass
so
to
say
you
wouldn't
have
solved
anything.
So
that's
my
previous
point
also
before
the
legal
entity.
Question
will
not
solve
any
of
those
problems
by
magic,
but
you
have
to
actually
find
a
solution
for
those
and
then
see
where
what
you
need,
in
addition
to
kind
of
like
where
that
kind
of
contributes
that
which
legal
entity
that's
your
I.
A
Mean
do
that
and
let
me
let
me
just
ask
one
question
in
the
room:
is
there
anybody
here
who
thinks
that
if
we
just
you
know,
is
something
that
we
can
consider
if
we
just
made
the
IOC
more
consultative
and
transparent,
you
know
with
that
alone,
fix
enough
of
the
problems
that
people
think
here.
It's
is
there
anyone
who
thinks
that
so
that's
when
we
can
at
least
take
off
the
table
this
we
need
something
that
is
more
I
as
a
plus
plus
than
that
right
to
fix
these
kinds
of
things.
G
Daigle
and
I
think
I'm,
emphasizing
you
on
his
point.
I
hope
I
am
I,
get
the
point
and
take
the
point
that
just
saying
this
structure
or
that
structure
it
doesn't
answer
the
question
Devils
in
the
details.
How
are
you
going
to
implement
any
of
those
structures
at
the
risk
of
dumping
a
whole
lot
more
work
down
on
my
own
head?
G
Among
others,
it
seems
like
a
more
useful
approach
might
be.
To
start
from
here
are
the
problems
that
we've
identified
and
here
are
the
ways
they
could
be
addressed
with
these
different
structures
and
then
taught
it
all
up
at
the
end.
So
we
can
have
a
rational
discussion
about
which
way,
which
flavor
of
a
path
did
we
want
to
pursue
because
I,
don't
I,
don't
think
we
can
discuss
the
trade-offs
of
you
know
some
surgery,
independent
I,
asked
us
possible.
You
don't
really
understand
how
they're
addressing
the
problems
we
think
we
have.
A
A
Think
that's
why
I
suspect,
maybe
in
Ted
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
underlies
a
lot
of
what
you're
saying
what
what
the
properties
are,
that
we
need
to
drive
this
towards
rather
than
just
kind
of
well,
if
we
create
a
structure
like
this,
we
can
hope
that
those
properties
will
somehow
magically
arise
from
it.
Yeah.
C
E
Lynch,
so
I
actually
think,
given
some
of
the
comments
that
Mike
that
there's
probably
prep
work
before
one
of
these
structures
is
clear.
Given
what
Jason
said
about
income
streams
and
history
and
given
what
guns
Allah
said
about
Cathy's
current
understanding,
as
opposed
to
the
handshake
agreements
that
were
the
original
partnership,
there's
work
there,
that's
clarifying
work
that
allows
us
to
understand
whether
or
not
we
even
have
options
there.
That
has
to
be
that.
A
That's
our
nature
as
well
and
well
taken
we
scheduled
for
about
five
more
minutes
if
there
is
anything
else
that
people
feel
we've
missed
here
that
we
should
be
talking
about
again.
I
think
this
discussion
about
what
what
the
properties
are,
that
we're
trying
to
drive
towards
is
probably
a
very
valuable
one
for
the
design
team
to
hear
about
before
they
go
back
and
take
another
swing
at
this,
but
I
think
actually
the
rest
of
the
time.