Dear Margaret and Pete,
I understand your position. It would be OK if status quo was the target.
Who hires the contractors would then be neutral. But the situation calls
for improvements. The first improvement is financial stability. This means
to make the IETF deliverable pay better and to create new deliverables
which will pay in addition/replacement. With these new deliverables will
come additional contractors and _possibly_ new requirement for the
IAOC. Also, I tend to think that what maintains the IETF together is
recognition for authoring its deliverables. This recognition is dwindling,
so the new deliverables should be conceived for a better recognition of its
Members.
The IETF is an author being his own publisher. No author ever made money in
publishing his own books. Just as an example: let consider we decide that a
new deliverable is an IETF related magazine to keep the world informed, get
feed backs, document the key IETF Members, etc. This would certainly affect
the kind of structure we would like to team with. If the publisher is an
English or a Multilingual publisher would also affect the whole future of
IETF and of the contibutions to the Internet standard process. The kind of
publication (and the value of the subscription and distribution) would
affect the level of recognition and therefore the motivation of the
Members. They would certainly want to discuss it before. Just an example;
Another problem is a possible IAOC failure. If IETF was not involved in its
detailed thinking process and supporting its choices, the impact of the
resulting dispute might be devastating.
jfc
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf