Thanks, John!
--On 6. september 2004 12:08 -0400 John C Klensin
<john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> wrote:
So I am left close to the question that prompted your response,
with little additional information from that response. I can't
parse the difference between "scenario A with MOU and maybe some
other things to be developed as needed" and "scenario B with MOU
but without pointless or risky tampering with how ISOC is
organized" ... that is, unless we take Scenario B as requiring
that everything be figured out and chiseled into granite before
we do anything. And I suggest (and will suggest in more detail
in an upcoming note) that anything that can wait long enough for
the granite-chiseling is something that probably doesn't need to
be done at all.
It seems to me that we are rapidly converging on one point of total IETF
consensus:
Putting the IETF administrative function under ISOC requires a documented
IETF-ISOC agreement (call it an MoU, a contract or something else - it IS
a document, it IS an agreement and it DOES have two parties).
Agreed?
The thing that left me most uncomfortable with Scenario B as described was
that it presented a smorgasboard of options ("here are ten menu choices -
take your pick"), where some of them (the MoU) were totally obvious, and
some had (in my mind) severe disadvantages. So we can't say "we go for
scenario B" and have the discussion be finished, we have to be able to say
"Options 1, 3, 5 and 7 make sense, the rest does not, and besides, here's
option 17 that wasn't in the original document".
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf