Re: newIANA (was Fram behind closed doors via opaque channels)

["Jim Fleming" <JimFleming@unety.net>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>
Cc: mueller@syr.edu <mueller@syr.edu>; Vinton G. Cerf <vcerf@mci.net>;
discussion-draft@giaw.org <discussion-draft@giaw.org>; ietf@ietf.org
<ietf@ietf.org>; comments@iana.org <comments@iana.org>; Iana@iana.org
<Iana@iana.org>; List@giaw.org <List@giaw.org>
Date: Monday, July 13, 1998 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: newIANA (was Fram behind closed doors via opaque channels)


>
>> However I am a pragmatist and I think most of us here are pragmatists.
>> We all agree that it is *above all* important to have technical
>> continuity and leave the technical staff of the IANA in peace to
>> do their work. There is, given the time available before September 30,
>> only one way to achieve this: a non-profit corporation in California.
>
>Please do not pre-judge the legal structure or fall into the belief that
>the word "non-profit" is a talisman that one waves and all kinds of good
>things automatically happen.
>
>There are many reasons why other legal forms, perhaps in other states of
>the US may prove vastly superior to a California non-profit corporation.
>(For example, a California non-profit public benefit corporation has been
>suggested as a superior alternative.  And there are reasons to consider
>a for-profit structure.)
>


Karl,

I believe the White Paper says "non-profit". Are you suggesting that
there is time to have another paper ?

In my opinion, they are out of colors, the paper is white. The only
thing left would be the Clear Paper, which the White Paper is not
although it is clear on several points. One is that a non-profit company
is called for.

By the way...as an aside...the U.S. Government has created non-profit
companies that somehow are internal to the U.S. Government. From
what I understand, that is not suggested or desired. I mention it because
you may end up down that road and find it is not where people want
to be.

As for California, I think there are probably people that feel that this new
non-profit company should NOT be in Virginia or the District of Columbia.
California appears to be the winner in all of these debates because that
is where USC/ISI is located as well as Emergent.

This of course is all moot if the ISOC just takes on the IANA "task".
The ISOC appears to be in Virginia but the Board did vote to open
an office in Geneva. The White Paper does not seem to prevent a
non-profit from setting up shop in the U.S. and the next day moving
out of the country. Do you think that would be a good thing to do ?


Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com