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

"Spencer Dawkins" <> Fri, 24 September 2004 11:36 UTC

Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA02087; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 07:36:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CAoTy-00087B-W6; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 07:43:23 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CAoIa-0005Sx-HF; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 07:31:36 -0400
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CAoID-0005O7-3W for; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 07:31:13 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA01782 for <>; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 07:31:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CAoP1-00081z-Ub for; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 07:38:26 -0400
Received: from dfnjgl21 ([]) by (rwcrmhc12) with SMTP id <20040924113031014001rhlde> (Authid:; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 11:30:31 +0000
Message-ID: <0a4d01c4a229$eefa5ac0$0400a8c0@DFNJGL21>
From: Spencer Dawkins <>
References: <> <p06020468bd7876d4f071@[]>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 06:30:44 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type="response"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 52e1467c2184c31006318542db5614d5
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: Scenario C or Scenario O ? - I say let us go for C !
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Spencer Dawkins <>
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: e1e48a527f609d1be2bc8d8a70eb76cb
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

From: "Margaret Wasserman" <>
To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <>; <>
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 8:36 AM
Subject: Re: Scenario C or Scenario O ? - I say let us go for C !

> Hi Bert,
> Both you and Ted have posted preferences for Scenario C that, to me, 
> seem to say "We will eventually have to go to Scenario C, anyway, so 
> we should undertake that effort today rather than leaving it for 
> later."  This might be a compelling argument if it were clear to me 
> that we will need to move to Scenario C in the future.  Could you 
> explain why you think that would be desireable?  What are the 
> practical advantages that you see to having two separate 
> corporations (ISOC and the IASF), one responsible for fund raising 
> and some standards-related tasks, and the other responsible for our 
> administrative support?

There was also the assumption that if we go with O and it turns out 
that we should have gone with C, it will be just as slow and painful 
getting to this point again as it was the first time.

Why would this be true? It's at least as likely that we would say "we 
should have made the other choice" and start moving to C - a shorter 
distance that it is now.

My non-random sample of second marriages is that they tend to either 
last or end more quickly than first marriages. That's a bad analogy, 
but I think the principle applies ("we've been here before and 
changing things was the right thing to do, so why wait now?").


Ietf mailing list