I believe that the difference between what Avri is discussing and what is discussed in Carl's draft is that Avri is talking about incorporating the IETF (the standards function), either as part of ISOC or as an independent entity, not just the administrative support function. Carl's draft limits itself to options for organizing the administrative support function.
Margaret
At 9:10 AM -0400 9/7/04, avri@xxxxxxx wrote:
On 7 sep 2004, at 02.13, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
avri@xxxxxxx wrote:
I'm very puzzled. I though those two extremes were exactly described by scenarios A and D.
Perhaps I misread, but while I saw that A and D are the extremes of the scenarios represented to date, I was suggesting is that the extremes not yet discussed are:
- full integration into ISOC with the rework of the by-law that accommodates the standard's function. Scenario A tends toward this but does, seem to me, to go all the way.
- Creation of a parallel non profit incorporated Standards organization with its own by-laws that is partnered though MOU's with ISOC. Scenario D might evoke this, but since the explanation of this Scenario is so brief, I have trouble understanding its implications.
In both I have trouble understanding the full implications in terms of items not within the administrative domain.
If A really does equal full integration and D really does equal full independence, then I will stand corrected, though I will remain confused about some of the implications.
a.
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf