On Sep 3, 2004, at 3:06 PM, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
If we were to go for option C, then in my personal view, it would have the
serious benefit that we are ALWAYS (from day 1) responsible to make sure
things work well. And we need to re-negotiate every so often if we want
to keep the relationships that we have or if we want to change them.
So in my view we would run far less risk to ever get in a similar situation
as where we are today. Yep... initially it will cost us some more money and
effort I suspect. But I think it is worth the price.
Bert-
It seems to me that this is an argument for option B as well as C. My take from the history you laid out is that what was missing was a clearly articulated set of relationships which defined roles and responsibilities (and possibly instructions for disentangling if things went bad. AFAICT, this could just as easily be put into option B without creating an (imo undesirable) increased distance between IETF and ISOC.
--aaron
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf