Dave,
Dave Crocker wrote:
... I believe that policy concerns are best addressed by
ISOC. Because ISOC's role in the standards process is at one
remove, it can work to educate legislatures and
administrations without appearing to favor one participant
over the other.
That sounds wonderful, except that ISOC has no significant
experience in that work and that work requires skill and
experience.
ISOC, like IETF, is largely a volunteer organization as far as
this sort of work is concerned. If the community wants
ISOC to take such a role, the community will also have to provide
the volunteers.
As has been commented to me repeatedly in recent months, when
someone in government wants to obtain advice about the Internet
and about Internet policy, they do not regularly consult ISOC.
ISOC does not regularly testify in Congress.
ISOC is international and is currently active in WSIS, the international
debate including Internet policy issues. If you want ISOC to take part
in national policy-setting in your country, it's in your hands. That's
one of the things ISOC chapters can do.
And so on.
More generally, as folks postulate spiffy functions for ISOC, it
might be worth asking where ISOC's expertise for that function
has been demonstrated.
That includes minor items like operational administration of a
standards body.
Well, nobody has demonstrated that skill as far as the IETF is
concerned, because we've never put *all* the administration into
one place. (Disclaimer: this isn't intended as a comment on
the separate administrations of the secretariat, IANA, and RFC
Editor.) But ISOC has administered itself for the last ten years,
through good times and bad.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf