[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Time horizon, contingencies, and destinations (was scenarios 0 and C)

2004-09-28 03:18:27

--On 27. september 2004 11:16 -0700 Tony Hain <alh-ietf(_at_)tndh(_dot_)net> 

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'.

It is also not hard to see the PR impact of this particular scenario being exposed in the pages of the IT press......

If people stop caring about the independence of the standards process to the point that this can happen without a) a severe PR black eye to the company trying it and b) offers for alternative/matching funding, then we have already lost the ability to do independent standardization.

(OTOH, the threat of "become effective or we'll walk away" has already been delivered in many ways, forms and voices. And although we've all got varying opinions about what "effective" means, I think those calls have had an effect on the organization. That's good, not bad. IMHO.)


Ietf mailing list