--On Wednesday, 08 September, 2004 10:01 -0400 avri@xxxxxxx
wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> No problem, my skin is not that thin. As i have tried to
> explain on the IETF list, i think we need to understand all
> options including these two extremes - the ones not
> specifically covered in the mud document. I find the models
> expressed in the document somewhat incomplete and slightly
> disingenuous in that they don't discuss the implications of
> the end of the road - as far as i can tell they hand wave
> about 'extraneous' results. And while I have never managed to
> get invovled in the policy part of IETF+ISOC, it is something
> i care about quite a bit.
Thanks. I think we are in complete agreement on the above.
> So if my notes provoke the discussion, even in the form of
> 'rants', i am satisfied.
>
> And thanks for the apology.
>
> a.
>
> ps. i don't have the negative connotations to absorbtion that
> you do. I see that as another term for merger, though, since
> ISOC is the real entity from a corporate point of view, it
> would constitute an absortion. It is the conditions, as in
> by-law changes and perhaps MOUs, that determine whether this
> is beneficial or destructive.
Indeed. But even "merger" can be pretty distracting and isn't
what I'm picturing either. So I should stop responding to this
thread and go back to constructing that note :-(
john
> On 8 sep 2004, at 09.41, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> --On Wednesday, 08 September, 2004 08:53 -0400 avri@xxxxxxx
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi John,
>>>
>>> Thanks for you analysis. It was something I felt lacking and
>>> has helping me in my wavering between the absorption into
>>> ISOC model and the independent corporate model.
>>>
>>> I look forward to your analysis of the absorption model.
>>
>> Avri, I want to apologize in advance for using your note as
>> the excuse for the rant below. You are certainly not the
>> first person to do this and probably won't be the last; your
>> note just arrived at a convenient time.
>>
>> <rant>
>> I think we need to be very careful about slapping labels of
>> convenience on options and then getting distracted by what
>> those labels "mean". Doing so can really distract from a
>> productive discussion in which information is exchanged.
>> There has been a lot of that sort of distraction, and the
>> associated confusion, going on, since even before San Diego.
>>
>> "Absorption" is a loaded term. If we are asked "how would you
>> like to be absorbed into foo", the answer has got to be "no".
>> For me, at least, the recurring image is some rather
>> unpleasant (for the food) digestion process. But, to my
>> knowledge, no one has seriously proposed anything of the
>> sort. Certainly the standards process has not been
>> "absorbed". I doubt that the RFC Editor staff would
>> consider themselves "absorbed". There are unincorporated
>> organizations in addition than the IETF which have worked
>> closely with ISOC for years and haven't been "absorbed"
>> either.
>>
>> And "independent corporate model", while less loaded
>> semantically (at least for me), is almost equally bad: to the
>> best of my knowledge, no one has really seriously proposed
>> that either, since "independent" would imply "own
>> fundraising" and presumably untangling the standards model
>> which is now seriously intertwined with ISOC. As long as
>> critical pieces of those things remain in ISOC's hands, we
>> aren't "independent" in any of the normal senses of that term.
>> </rant>
>>
>> john
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf