The problem in this exchange is that you all are
using the wrong metric for measuring "participation".
The correct metric is "participants", and the IETF has vastly more
than the other standards bodies, and is vastly more open to adding
new participants over time.
And, quite frankly speaking, ICANN has no members either, aside from
those 19 that are Members of the Board of Directors, including the
squatters;-)...
Their membership is exceeded by the number oof staff members;-)...
At 10:38 -0700 16/10/01, ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
> From: "Robert Elz" <kre(_at_)munnari(_dot_)OZ(_dot_)AU>
> > Certainly the way the IETF works, in all regards, is different to
> > most other organisations - not having any real defined members as
> > such makes a difference.
> If you recall, the notion that the IETF has no members changed when
> ICANN arrived on the scene. At the IETF meeting in Sweden, when,
> ICANN was recruiting followers for the PSO, the IETF, W3C and
> ETSI were considered equals. Apparently, the IETF people objected
> and noted that ETSI has a small number of members. Someone else
> apparently noted that the IETF has no members, and is therefore
> smaller than ETSI. In order to become part of ICANN, the IETF had
> to quickly talk out of the other side of its mouth and claim to have
> thousands of members.
Reread what Robert said -- there's a big difference between not having a well
defined "is a member of" test and not having any members. Any contributor to
the IETF is effectively a member of it.
Ned