Hello Melinda;-)... It is your assertion, that "The IETF is an engineering body" which assertion standing by it's self does not make it true. Your assertion certainly matches any description of the origins and first years of the IETF, but does not match the result of 17 or so years of IETF/IAB/ISOC meetings and mailing list discussions. The facts of history are restricted to records of actual events. The current "crisis" if that is what it is, seems to be related to certain recent events in the life of ICANN, in which certain IETF parties have been significantly involved. Some of the ICANN chickens have come home to roost. The privatization of NSFnet by Steve Wolfe was a master stroke by any comparison to ICANN. Among other things, it actually works, although it surely needs to adjust with its changing market. What I "like" or "dislike" is of no consequence in this IETF list discussion. I am not advocating anything specific, other than that IETF pay some attention to historic reality, if IETF can find some. The IETF got itself into its current situation. It is nobody else's fault that the IETF is where it is. Diverting the topic is not likely to help resolve anything. Correcting the current problems is job for IETF, as it was a party to creating the mess, and IETF is impacted by the resulting situation. So, dealing with the resulting impacts is a job for IETF. No one else is going to ride to the rescue of IETF. I am just trying to shed some helpful light on the issues, by calling a spade a spade, when I see one. Hopefully IETF will find a way to escape from Alice's Wonderland, Also Known As The Land of ICANN. Cheers...\Stef At 4:14 PM -0400 8/4/02, Melinda Shore wrote: > > Are you objecting to the way the past political actions of the > > IETF/IAB have turned out (e.g., the ICANN MESS) or advocating the > > concept that the IETF should now somehow cease being a political > > action organization. > >The IETF is an engineering body. > >If you'd like we can also revisit the decision to privatize >NSFNet, but perhaps we should take it to the aft working >group mailing list - it could do with some activity. > >Melinda