Re: Options for IETF administrative restructuring

[[e-mail]]

On 6 sep 2004, at 07.31, [e-mail] wrote:

> 2.  I think that we shouldn't broaden the discussion at this time ( as
> Avri suggested ), on the grounds of keeping things simple.

I understand the desire to keep thing simple and that Carl is 
attempting a simple fix to a single problem.  However, I think that any 
of the decisions made on a simple fix have possible repercussions for 
the entire relationship and for the IETF's ability to function as a 
standards body.  It is these that I think need to be understood.

This is why I think the full scope of the possible effects should be 
discussed and understood for all options, including both the 4 
compromise solution proposed (A-D) and the more extreme positions of a 
full merger into ISOC or the establishment of an independent Standards 
non profit corporate counterpart/companion to ISOC.

Currently I think A-D are all in some respect ambiguous relationships 
that open many questions.  I tend to prefer one of the more extreme 
positions mentioned above, though I can't yet say which of the two i 
would argue for since I don't fully understand the repercussions of 
each.

That being said, i would also find it reasonable to establish a 
direction and pick an intermediate route that gave immediate solution 
to the 'simple' problem problem involved in gaining control of the 
administrative functions.  Whether that intermediate is A or C, would 
in many ways depend on where we wanted to end up in the end.

a.


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf