RE: Time horizon, contingencies, and destinations (was scenarios 0 and C)

--On 27. september 2004 11:16 -0700 Tony Hain <alh-ietf@tndh.net> wrote:

>> If the Independent Corporation were intended to be the IETF, I would
>> agree, but I with an incorporated administrative entity, I don't think
>> this is an issue.   At least in my reading, neither O or C proposes
>> any changes to the standards process or ISOC's role in it.
>
> There is nothing explicitly proposed in C, but run the thought experiment
> of what would happen if a major contributor to the administrative entity
> threatened to pull funding if X didn't happen on the technical process
> side. It is not hard to get to the point of 'do X or fold the
> organization for lack of funds'.

It is also not hard to see the PR impact of this particular scenario being 
exposed in the pages of the IT press......

If people stop caring about the independence of the standards process to 
the point that this can happen without a) a severe PR black eye to the 
company trying it and b) offers for alternative/matching funding, then we 
have already lost the ability to do independent standardization.

(OTOH, the threat of "become effective or we'll walk away" has already been 
delivered in many ways, forms and voices. And although we've all got 
varying opinions about what "effective" means, I think those calls have had 
an effect on the organization. That's good, not bad. IMHO.)

                          Harald

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