ISOC [Re: My views on the Scenario O & C]

Brian E Carpenter <> Sat, 25 September 2004 09:43 UTC

Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA15202; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 05:43:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CB9Cx-0008Om-VA; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 05:51:12 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CB8zX-0008RL-3q; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 05:37:19 -0400
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CB8wr-00082N-44 for; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 05:34:33 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA14907 for <>; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 05:34:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CB941-0008HM-QL for; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 05:41:58 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i8P9Y0FW152880; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 09:34:00 GMT
Received: from ( []) by (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id i8P9Xxg9095462; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 11:33:59 +0200
Received: from ( []) by (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA33086; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 11:33:57 +0200
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 11:33:58 +0200
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: IBM
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113
X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Sam Hartman <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 39bd8f8cbb76cae18b7e23f7cf6b2b9f
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Bob Hinden <>,
Subject: ISOC [Re: My views on the Scenario O & C]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: a7d6aff76b15f3f56fcb94490e1052e4
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>>>>"Bob" == Bob Hinden <> writes:
>     Bob> The ISOC is certainly not perfect and has had serious
>     Bob> problems in the past.  These problems have been solved and as
>     Bob> far as I can tell the ISOC is working well.  I would note
>     Bob> that the ISOC was initially set up by competent people with
>     Bob> the best of intentions, but things did not work out as
>     Bob> originally planned.  
> Would you mind summarizing these problems for those of us who are
> relatively new to the process?

There could be many different views on this, but my summary (as an
ISOC Board member and Board Chair during some of the relevant period)
is that the ISOC went through a severe financial crisis, due to
some financially disastrous annual conferences, and the economic
problems in our industry. This financial crisis made it increasingly
impossible to ignore some deep problems in ISOC's governance model.
So we made painful budget cuts (but always protecting the IETF
related expenditure), reformed the Board structure, and (to my
personal surprise) made a big success of "grandfathering"
the .org registry.

Hidden behind the governance reform was the fact that, although
some people from the IETF community joined ISOC, the majority
of the individual members were (and are) drawn from a much
broader spectrum of Internet users worldwide. They had the only
voice in electing the old Board. The IETF, and ISOC's industrial
supporters, had no voice. That needed to be changed, and was changed
starting 2001.


Ietf mailing list