Re: Options for IETF administrative restructuring

[Aaron Falk <[e-mail]>]

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
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf