Re: An Organized Activity of the ISOC [resent]

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:

> Below is a (slightly augmented) version of my poll response.
> I note that I have not attempted to review the proposals in
> detail (I rather stay out of these weeds), but believe I
> understand the general gist of the scenarios.
>
> I view Scenario C as overly complex and risky.  For instance,
> one cannot assume the newly formed corporation will achieve
> non-profit status in a timely manner (if at all).
>
> I view Scenario O as an natural evolution of our existing
> operation model.  We are today "an organized activity of
> the ISOC" and would remain so.  Scenario O appears to shifts
> certain activities from a service provider (CNRI/Foretec)
> to the ISOC and facilitates use of other service providers
> if and when that is deemed appropriate.
>
> I am far more willing to trust ISOC (based upon operational
> experience) than some new entity (which we have no operational
> experience with).

I would be in complete agreement there, particularly since the IETF had
had members seated on the ISOC board for some time now.

>
> For these reasons and more, I strongly prefer Scenario O over C.
>
> -- Kurt
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>

sleekfreak pirate broadcast
http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf