--On Wednesday, 08 September, 2004 10:01 -0400 avri(_at_)psg(_dot_)com
wrote:
Hi John,
No problem, my skin is not that thin. As i have tried to
explain on the IETF list, i think we need to understand all
options including these two extremes - the ones not
specifically covered in the mud document. I find the models
expressed in the document somewhat incomplete and slightly
disingenuous in that they don't discuss the implications of
the end of the road - as far as i can tell they hand wave
about 'extraneous' results. And while I have never managed to
get invovled in the policy part of IETF+ISOC, it is something
i care about quite a bit.
Thanks. I think we are in complete agreement on the above.
So if my notes provoke the discussion, even in the form of
'rants', i am satisfied.
And thanks for the apology.
a.
ps. i don't have the negative connotations to absorbtion that
you do. I see that as another term for merger, though, since
ISOC is the real entity from a corporate point of view, it
would constitute an absortion. It is the conditions, as in
by-law changes and perhaps MOUs, that determine whether this
is beneficial or destructive.
Indeed. But even "merger" can be pretty distracting and isn't
what I'm picturing either. So I should stop responding to this
thread and go back to constructing that note :-(
john
On 8 sep 2004, at 09.41, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Wednesday, 08 September, 2004 08:53 -0400 avri(_at_)psg(_dot_)com
wrote:
Hi John,
Thanks for you analysis. It was something I felt lacking and
has helping me in my wavering between the absorption into
ISOC model and the independent corporate model.
I look forward to your analysis of the absorption model.
Avri, I want to apologize in advance for using your note as
the excuse for the rant below. You are certainly not the
first person to do this and probably won't be the last; your
note just arrived at a convenient time.
<rant>
I think we need to be very careful about slapping labels of
convenience on options and then getting distracted by what
those labels "mean". Doing so can really distract from a
productive discussion in which information is exchanged.
There has been a lot of that sort of distraction, and the
associated confusion, going on, since even before San Diego.
"Absorption" is a loaded term. If we are asked "how would you
like to be absorbed into foo", the answer has got to be "no".
For me, at least, the recurring image is some rather
unpleasant (for the food) digestion process. But, to my
knowledge, no one has seriously proposed anything of the
sort. Certainly the standards process has not been
"absorbed". I doubt that the RFC Editor staff would
consider themselves "absorbed". There are unincorporated
organizations in addition than the IETF which have worked
closely with ISOC for years and haven't been "absorbed"
either.
And "independent corporate model", while less loaded
semantically (at least for me), is almost equally bad: to the
best of my knowledge, no one has really seriously proposed
that either, since "independent" would imply "own
fundraising" and presumably untangling the standards model
which is now seriously intertwined with ISOC. As long as
critical pieces of those things remain in ISOC's hands, we
aren't "independent" in any of the normal senses of that term.
</rant>
john
_______________________________________________
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