Re: Options for IETF administrative restructuring

avri@psg.com wrote:
> 
> On 6 sep 2004, at 07.31, graham.travers@bt.com 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.

I'm very puzzled. I though those two extremes were exactly described
by scenarios A and D.

    Brian

> 
> 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
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 

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