RE: Scenario C or Scenario O ? - I say let us go for C !

"Joel M. Halpern" <joel@stevecrocker.com> Thu, 23 September 2004 21:33 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25341; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:33:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CAbKR-0002lU-14; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:40:39 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CAb4Z-0001GS-4G; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:24:15 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CAamm-0006Mb-Nj for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:05:52 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA23109 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:05:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ns.execdsl.net ([208.184.15.238] helo=EXECDSL.COM) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CAatJ-00025j-Pb for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:12:58 -0400
Received: from [64.254.114.114] (HELO JLaptop.stevecrocker.com) by EXECDSL.COM (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.3) with ESMTP id 7626045 for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:05:27 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20040923165951.03452b80@localhost>
X-Sender: joel@stevecrocker.com@localhost
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:04:39 -0400
To: ietf@ietf.org
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <joel@stevecrocker.com>
In-Reply-To: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15503C79CDC@nl0006exch001u.nl .lucent.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 08170828343bcf1325e4a0fb4584481c
Subject: RE: Scenario C or Scenario O ? - I say let us go for C !
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8

Actually, as far as I can tell the accountability is about the same in both 
cases, and in neither case as "direct" as one would philosophically like 
(but probably as direct as one can get in practice.)  Similarly, the 
"change control" appears to be equally in the IETF hands.

Yours,
Joel

At 10:31 PM 9/23/2004 +0200, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>- if done properly, this allows for a very straight forward
>   governance mechanism that is *directly* accountable to
>   the IETF and where change control is clearly vested in that
>   same community.  Again, the corporate solution is the
>   lightweight and straightforward solution.


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