hardie@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Ted Hardie) wrote on 21.09.04 in <p06110402bd7615db394a@[129.46.227.161]>: > creating the appropriate corporate realities. A major disagreement > that we seem to have is whether any additional work that may be required to > create the appropriate corporate realities is worth the options it > buys now and options it allows us to buy in the future. Right now, it seems to me the relevant point is not so much "additional work" as "additional serious risk", as has already been pointed out by others. As for the benefits, most of them seem to be purely theoretical to me; the "development of ISOC" one is, IMO, pure fantasy - if ISOC decides that a split would be beneficial, this could certainly be arranged at any time after doing scenario O; there's really nothing in there to prevent that, and the timing on that would be much more realistic. Given how long it took the German finance authorities to decide that the supporting organization for westfalen.de didn't meet tax exempt status, and given how closely this matches predictions for the US case, I'd rather the IETF didn't start out on this particular reckless adventure, especially as I really don't see any actual benefits. At least we didn't have an alternative back then. The IETF has scenario O. MfG Kai _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf