On 6 sep 2004, at 07.31, graham(_dot_)travers(_at_)bt(_dot_)com wrote:
2. I think that we shouldn't broaden the discussion at this time ( as
Avri suggested ), on the grounds of keeping things simple.
I understand the desire to keep thing simple and that Carl is
attempting a simple fix to a single problem. However, I think that any
of the decisions made on a simple fix have possible repercussions for
the entire relationship and for the IETF's ability to function as a
standards body. It is these that I think need to be understood.
This is why I think the full scope of the possible effects should be
discussed and understood for all options, including both the 4
compromise solution proposed (A-D) and the more extreme positions of a
full merger into ISOC or the establishment of an independent Standards
non profit corporate counterpart/companion to ISOC.
Currently I think A-D are all in some respect ambiguous relationships
that open many questions. I tend to prefer one of the more extreme
positions mentioned above, though I can't yet say which of the two i
would argue for since I don't fully understand the repercussions of
each.
That being said, i would also find it reasonable to establish a
direction and pick an intermediate route that gave immediate solution
to the 'simple' problem problem involved in gaining control of the
administrative functions. Whether that intermediate is A or C, would
in many ways depend on where we wanted to end up in the end.
a.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf