IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Options for IETF administrative restructuring

Aaron Falk <falk@ISI.EDU> Mon, 06 September 2004 00:57 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 UAA04082; Sun, 5 Sep 2004 20:57:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C47sX-0003Sh-6e; Sun, 05 Sep 2004 21:01:08 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C47mh-0003VE-D0; Sun, 05 Sep 2004 20:55:03 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C47lK-0003MC-24 for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 05 Sep 2004 20:53:38 -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 UAA03893 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Sep 2004 20:53:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu ([128.9.64.64]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C47oQ-0003OY-UB for ietf@ietf.org; Sun, 05 Sep 2004 20:56:52 -0400
Received: from [192.168.1.3] (dsl081-036-151.lax1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.36.151]) by vapor.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id i860rOx23481; Sun, 5 Sep 2004 17:53:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B1550526AF49@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com>
References: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B1550526AF49@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <2500FBFD-FF9F-11D8-B37C-000A95DBDB84@isi.edu>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Aaron Falk <falk@ISI.EDU>
Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 17:53:19 -0700
To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619)
X-ISI-4-32-5-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: falk@isi.edu
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Options for IETF administrative restructuring
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: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Sep 3, 2004, at 3:06 PM, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:

> If we were to go for option C, then in my personal view, it would have 
> the
> serious benefit that we are ALWAYS (from day 1) responsible to make 
> sure
> things work well. And we need to re-negotiate every so often if we want
> to keep the relationships that we have or if we want to change them.
> So in my view we would run far less risk to ever get in a similar 
> situation
> as where we are today. Yep... initially it will cost us some more 
> money and
> effort I suspect. But I think it is worth the price.

Bert-

It seems to me that this is an argument for option B as well as C.  My 
take from the history you laid out is that what was missing was a 
clearly articulated set of relationships which defined roles and 
responsibilities (and possibly instructions for disentangling if things 
went bad.  AFAICT, this could just as easily be put into option B 
without creating an (imo undesirable) increased distance between IETF 
and ISOC.

--aaron


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email