I believe that the difference between what Avri is discussing and
what is discussed in Carl's draft is that Avri is talking about
incorporating the IETF (the standards function), either as part of
ISOC or as an independent entity, not just the administrative support
function. Carl's draft limits itself to options for organizing the
administrative support function.
Margaret
At 9:10 AM -0400 9/7/04, avri(_at_)psg(_dot_)com wrote:
On 7 sep 2004, at 02.13, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
avri(_at_)psg(_dot_)com wrote:
I'm very puzzled. I though those two extremes were exactly described
by scenarios A and D.
Perhaps I misread, but while I saw that A and D are the extremes of
the scenarios represented to date, I was suggesting is that the
extremes not yet discussed are:
- full integration into ISOC with the rework of the by-law that
accommodates the standard's function. Scenario A tends toward this
but does, seem to me, to go all the way.
- Creation of a parallel non profit incorporated Standards
organization with its own by-laws that is partnered though MOU's
with ISOC. Scenario D might evoke this, but since the explanation
of this Scenario is so brief, I have trouble understanding its
implications.
In both I have trouble understanding the full implications in terms
of items not within the administrative domain.
If A really does equal full integration and D really does equal full
independence, then I will stand corrected, though I will remain
confused about some of the implications.
a.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf