From: "Margaret Wasserman" <margaret(_at_)thingmagic(_dot_)com>
To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen(_at_)lucent(_dot_)com>;
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 8:36 AM
Subject: Re: Scenario C or Scenario O ? - I say let us go for C !
Hi Bert,
Both you and Ted have posted preferences for Scenario C that, to me,
seem to say "We will eventually have to go to Scenario C, anyway, so
we should undertake that effort today rather than leaving it for
later." This might be a compelling argument if it were clear to me
that we will need to move to Scenario C in the future. Could you
explain why you think that would be desireable? What are the
practical advantages that you see to having two separate
corporations (ISOC and the IASF), one responsible for fund raising
and some standards-related tasks, and the other responsible for our
administrative support?
There was also the assumption that if we go with O and it turns out
that we should have gone with C, it will be just as slow and painful
getting to this point again as it was the first time.
Why would this be true? It's at least as likely that we would say "we
should have made the other choice" and start moving to C - a shorter
distance that it is now.
My non-random sample of second marriages is that they tend to either
last or end more quickly than first marriages. That's a bad analogy,
but I think the principle applies ("we've been here before and
changing things was the right thing to do, so why wait now?").
Spencer
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf