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

[Margaret Wasserman <[e-mail]>]

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?

Personally, I see the Scenario C structure (which involves the IASF 
having a huge financial dependence on ISOC with only few other 
weak/indirect links between the two organizations) as much less 
likely to be stable long-term than the structure proposed in Scenario 
O (a single corporation, ISOC, responsible for administrative support 
and fund raising).

In my personal opinion, it will be much better (cheaper, less risky, 
more likely to succeed) for the IETF to deal with a single support 
organization that handles both our administrative support activity 
and our fund raising.  This will clarify and strengthen our fund 
raising efforts,  allow the IETF to deal with a single corporate 
entity, and avoid the need to deal with a weak/confusing/one-sided 
link between the corporation that performs our fund raising and the 
corporation that handles our administrative budget.  This reasoning 
leads me to a preference for either Scenario O or Scenario D (the 
main difference, in my opinion, being whether we go with ISOC or 
found a new corporation).

I think that using an existing corporation (ISOC) will be much 
cheaper and less risky than setting up a new corporation, and I don't 
see any reason to believe that our chances of success are any higher 
with a new corporation  than they would be with the corporation that 
we created ~10 years ago.  ISOC has already gone through the initial 
establishment phase and is now fiscally sound and stable.  This has 
many practical benefits for the IETF, such as ISOC's proven ability 
to get a substantial credit line to support an IETF transition.  This 
leads me to choose Scenario O as the most likely stable and 
successful end-point for our efforts.

Could you explain in more detail why you believe that Scenario C 
would be a better end-point?

Margaret


At 11:53 AM +0200 9/23/04, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>So what we need is more people from the IETF community to speak up
>and tell us what they think. This is an important decision we (as IETF)
>need to make, and we better make it sooner than later.
>
>I am surprised to see so few people react. So may I ask:
>
>   ALL IETFers, PLEASE DO REVIEW the scenario O and C writeups
>   and please do send your feedback so that we (as IETF) can make
>   a sound decision that is supported by the majority of our community.
>
>Maybe it was/is not clear yet where I stand myself.
>
>So here it is:
>
>>From what I have seen/read sofar, my preference is to go for Scenario C.
>Yes, Scenario O seems somewhat simpler.
>Yes, Scenario O seems acceptable today.
>
>But I seriously believe that in the long run, a Scenario C is the better
>and more solid option.
>
>My personal view on this is that if we just look at TODAY, then I can say
>that I can live with scenario O. But in the future, we could end up in the
>same or a similar boat as where we are today (see my response to Scott
>Bradner on 4th of Sept to this list for details). At that future time I may
>not be around anymore. But I want to create the "best future for my children"
>so to speak. That is why I am prepared to take the risks that we have
>described in Scenario C. We need to work more on that to understand them
>better and to take precautions and measure to mitigate them. We need to
>work/discuss with ISOC what that means in terms of our continued close
>relationship (ISOC, IETF and also IASF) and clearly document that. We all
>have the same goals when it comes to standardizing the Internet Protocols.
>
>Most important to me... we better choose one of the scenarios, so we
>can start working on the details and implementation!
>
>Again, please post your comments/concerns and/or preferences.
>
>Thanks,
>Bert
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ietf mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf