One of the things that doesn't appear clear, is that ID Pro might continue to add debt in Kantara after it has incorporated. Just doing that requested exercise of asking consent to transfer all those folks is not a one hour job. Kantara only has to remember back as far as last year and the Kantara - IEEE-ISTO split...:-). Of course, I could be quite wrong, and that hundreds of thousands of dollars arrive into ID Pro, and the effort becomes trivial to underwrite. But just as you mention 'time-payments' you probably need to set the expectations of the Board that the split may not be a 'here today - gone tomorrow' scenario as of the day of incorporation... unless you and we as an SC really think that is the case.
That then has implications on the 3 year limit, because the Board might reasonably expect that clock to start ticking when there is zero ID Pro in Kantara. They might consider a slightly longer period.. Maybe offer a period range?
The other thing that I guess we need to address is the implications of 'shut down' of the DG. As an SC we may want to think that through a bit.
ID Pro's happy path seems that 'resources-wise', it will be able to manage most of the workstreams it wants to keep now, and perhaps more.
There is no suggestion in your draft of migrating DG materials across..So that really is 'DG shut down' and Kantara archiving the artefacts. Is that what you intend?
Then there's the issue of IP.
We haven't had a discussion in the SC or DG AFAIK about ID Pro's intended IPR policy, but the DG uses CC-SA. So if there was an intention to migrate the artefacts to ID Pro, I can imagine the Board wanting to know exactly under what IPR policy that will take place.
We also haven't revisited the budget scenarios since those early ones that Virtual did late last year. I don't know for sure, but I could foresee the Board wanting to see some numbers, a happy path, an OK path and a sub optimal path.
Maybe not right now in this paper, but I think you should make some statement about the intention of drawing up and operating to a budget with targets to get X money in by etc. It would help give confidence in the time-payments proposal.
As I say, good first cut, and it did reflect the draft proposal put to them to think about. So where there are gaps, that is partly that paper's shortcomings at the time :-) - which is the benefit of this 'back - and - forth'. We have a cycle to give it another look and scan for gaps.
Cheers
Colin