Inline.
At 11:16 AM -0700 9/27/04, Tony Hain wrote:
Ted Hardie wrote:
At 10:59 AM -0700 9/27/04, Tony Hain wrote:
> At the
>same time, if we go down the path of more stable centralized fund-raising
by
>the scenario C proposed Independent Corporation, there are likely to be
some
>strong strings (ropes/chains) attached to that funding with the
>implicit/explicit intent to influence the outcome of the technical
efforts.
>Call it a membership organization or not, the outcome of this environment
is
>that those who are providing the funds will be in a position to demand
their
>way on technical issues through the threat of pulling the money.
If the Independent Corporation were intended to be the IETF, I would
agree, but I with an incorporated administrative entity, I don't think
this is an issue. At least in my reading, neither O or C proposes
any changes to the standards process or ISOC's role in it.
There is nothing explicitly proposed in C, but run the thought experiment of
what would happen if a major contributor to the administrative entity
threatened to pull funding if X didn't happen on the technical process side.
It is not hard to get to the point of 'do X or fold the organization for
lack of funds'.
Hmm. If I understand C correctly, the meeting fees are intended to be
the funding source with augmentation (if needed) by fund raising
done by ISOC. Such a threat would be going to ISOC, then, just
as it would be under O.
The same argument could be made about ISOC's donors and the
RFC Editor decisions and/or appeals decisions. Such interference
has not, to my knowledge, ever occurred. Whether this is because
ISOC has refused donations which came so encumbered or because
those who might have offered them recognized ISOC would do
so, I don't know. In either case, I don't see your thought experiment
producing a different result.
regards,
Ted Hardie
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf