Re: Functional differentiation and administrative restructuring Wed, 08 September 2004 14:06 UTC

Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA13229; Wed, 8 Sep 2004 10:06:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C539f-0001Ee-9e; Wed, 08 Sep 2004 10:10:35 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C532Y-0008HB-MK; Wed, 08 Sep 2004 10:03:14 -0400
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C531L-0006xo-F9 for; Wed, 08 Sep 2004 10:01:59 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA12695 for <>; Wed, 8 Sep 2004 10:01:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C534w-00019m-Ro for; Wed, 08 Sep 2004 10:05:46 -0400
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id i88Di0ep026872 for <>; Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:44:01 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <p06110413bd640a63bcb8@[]> <> <> <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 10:01:51 -0400
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619)
X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: d185fa790257f526fedfd5d01ed9c976
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: Functional differentiation and administrative restructuring
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: c3a18ef96977fc9bcc21a621cbf1174b
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi John,

No problem, my skin is not that thin.  As i have tried to explain on 
the IETF list, i think we need to understand all options including 
these two extremes - the ones not specifically covered in the mud 
document.  I find the models expressed in the document somewhat 
incomplete and slightly disingenuous in that they don't discuss the 
implications of the end of the road - as far as i can tell they hand 
wave about 'extraneous' results.  And while I have never managed to get 
invovled in the policy part of IETF+ISOC, it is something i care about 
quite a bit.

So if my notes provoke the discussion, even in the form of 'rants', i 
am satisfied.

And thanks for the apology.


ps. i don't have the negative connotations to absorbtion that you do.  
I see that as another term for merger, though, since ISOC is the real 
entity from a corporate point of view, it would constitute an 
absortion.  It is the conditions, as in by-law changes and perhaps 
MOUs, that determine whether this is beneficial or destructive.

On 8 sep 2004, at 09.41, John C Klensin wrote:

> --On Wednesday, 08 September, 2004 08:53 -0400
> wrote:
>> Hi John,
>> Thanks for you analysis.  It was something I felt lacking and
>> has helping me in my wavering between the absorption into ISOC
>> model and the independent corporate model.
>> I look forward to your analysis of the absorption model.
> Avri, I want to apologize in advance for using your note as the
> excuse for the rant below.   You are certainly not the first
> person to do this and probably won't be the last; your note just
> arrived at a convenient time.
> <rant>
> I think we need to be very careful about slapping labels of
> convenience on options and then getting distracted by what those
> labels "mean".  Doing so can really distract from a productive
> discussion in which information is exchanged.    There has been
> a lot of that sort of distraction, and the associated confusion,
> going on, since even before San Diego.
> "Absorption" is a loaded term.  If we are asked "how would you
> like to be absorbed into foo", the answer has got to be "no".
> For me, at least, the recurring image is some rather unpleasant
> (for the food) digestion process.  But, to my knowledge, no one
> has seriously proposed anything of the sort.   Certainly the
> standards process has not been "absorbed".   I doubt that the
> RFC Editor staff would consider themselves "absorbed".  There
> are unincorporated organizations in addition than the IETF which
> have worked closely with ISOC for years and haven't been
> "absorbed" either.
> And "independent corporate model", while less loaded
> semantically (at least for me), is almost equally bad: to the
> best of my knowledge, no one has really seriously proposed that
> either, since "independent" would imply "own fundraising" and
> presumably untangling the standards model which is now seriously
> intertwined with ISOC.   As long as critical pieces of those
> things remain in ISOC's hands, we aren't "independent" in any of
> the normal senses of that term.
> </rant>
>     john

Ietf mailing list