Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on where from here

kaih@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) Thu, 23 September 2004 22:26 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29954; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:26:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CAc9m-0003ky-GI; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:33:42 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CAbtc-0004sS-6Y; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:17:00 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CAbhq-0007rK-7v for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:04:50 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA27719 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:04:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from colo.khms.westfalen.de ([213.239.196.208] ident=Debian-exim) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CAbog-0003OA-Bq for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 18:11:56 -0400
Received: from khms.vpn ([10.172.192.2]:33538 helo=khms.westfalen.de ident=Debian-exim) by colo.khms.westfalen.de with asmtp (TLS-1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA:16) (Exim 4.34) id 1CAbYE-0007kw-1l for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 23:54:55 +0200
Received: from root (helo=khms.westfalen.de) by khms.westfalen.de with local-bsmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CANc7-00017T-Vk for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 09:02:00 +0200
Received: by khms.westfalen.de (CrossPoint v3.12d.kh14 R/C435); 23 Sep 2004 08:59:44 +0200
Date: 23 Sep 2004 08:55:00 +0200
From: kaih@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen)
To: ietf@ietf.org
Message-ID: <9HReavY1w-B@khms.westfalen.de>
In-Reply-To: <p06110402bd7615db394a@[129.46.227.161]>
X-Mailer: CrossPoint v3.12d.kh14 R/C435
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Organisation? Me?! Are you kidding?
References: <414EDAA2.9080205@thinkingcat.com> <85DDA364DCE0FE2485763318@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <p0602043cbd75d138cf27@[192.168.2.2]> <p0602043cbd75d138cf27@[192.168.2.2]> <p06110402bd7615db394a@[129.46.227.161]>
X-No-Junk-Mail: I do not want to get *any* junk mail.
Comment: Unsolicited commercial mail will incur an US$100 handling fee per received mail.
X-Fix-Your-Modem: +++ATS2=255&WO1
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32
Subject: Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on where from here
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a

hardie@qualcomm.com (Ted Hardie)  wrote on 21.09.04 in <p06110402bd7615db394a@[129.46.227.161]>1]>:

> creating the appropriate corporate realities.  A major disagreement
> that we seem to have is whether any additional work that may be required to
> create the appropriate corporate realities is worth the options it
> buys now and options it allows us to buy in the future.

Right now, it seems to me the relevant point is not so much "additional  
work" as "additional serious risk", as has already been pointed out by  
others.

As for the benefits, most of them seem to be purely theoretical to me; the  
"development of ISOC" one is, IMO, pure fantasy - if ISOC decides that a  
split would be beneficial, this could certainly be arranged at any time  
after doing scenario O; there's really nothing in there to prevent that,  
and the timing on that would be much more realistic.

Given how long it took the German finance authorities to decide that the  
supporting organization for westfalen.de didn't meet tax exempt status,  
and given how closely this matches predictions for the US case, I'd rather  
the IETF didn't start out on this particular reckless adventure,  
especially as I really don't see any actual benefits. At least we didn't  
have an alternative back then. The IETF has scenario O.

MfG Kai

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