Re: Options for IETF administrative restructuring

I believe that the difference between what Avri is discussing and 
what is discussed in Carl's draft is that Avri is talking about 
incorporating the IETF (the standards function), either as part of 
ISOC or as an independent entity, not just the administrative support 
function.  Carl's draft limits itself to options for organizing the 
administrative support function.

Margaret

At 9:10 AM -0400 9/7/04, avri@psg.com wrote:
>On 7 sep 2004, at 02.13, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
>>  avri@psg.com wrote:
>>>
>>
>>  I'm very puzzled. I though those two extremes were exactly described
>>  by scenarios A and D.
>
>Perhaps I misread, but while I saw that A and D are the extremes of 
>the scenarios represented to date, I was suggesting is that the 
>extremes not yet discussed are:
>
>- full integration into ISOC with the rework of the by-law that 
>accommodates the standard's function. Scenario A tends toward this 
>but does, seem to me, to go all the way.
>
>- Creation of a parallel non profit incorporated Standards 
>organization with its own by-laws  that is partnered though MOU's 
>with ISOC.  Scenario D might evoke this, but since the explanation 
>of this Scenario is so brief, I have trouble understanding its 
>implications.
>
>In both I have trouble understanding the full implications in terms 
>of items not within the administrative domain.
>
>If A really does equal full integration and D really does equal full 
>independence, then I will stand corrected, though I will remain 
>confused about some of the implications.
>
>
>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