Ted Hardie wrote:
...
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.
The point is there is no real independence without complete funding, and as
I understand the recent budgets we are seriously into 'augmentation is
necessary'. Asking ISOC to be the cover organization at the same time you
tell them you don't trust them to do the right thing for managing the
administrative functions is just silly. If you don't trust them to do the
day to day right, why do you trust them to provide cover funding when it is
needed? You either trust them or you don't.
As I said earlier, the IETF has to recognize that 'going it alone' is not
the goal. The core competency is development of technology standards, and
administrative management is not something to do in-house. While C claims to
be outsourcing, it really isn't. The real differences between C & O are the
perception of independence, and the costs. C is nothing more than a fantasy
that we can't afford in any case, short or long term.
Tony
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf