Scott,
ISOC was not and is not responsible in any way for the activities performed by CNRI for the IETF. Your remark suggests that ISOC let the IETF down on non-technical issues that the IETF was expecting to handle. I am not aware of any and I'd be interested to know if there are.
As Brian pointed out ISOC has gone thru financially troubling times, but even then ISOC still managed to fund the RFC-editor and perform all the IETF related activities. I am not aware that ISOC dropped the ball in a major way.
Erik
--On zaterdag 25 september 2004 7:00 -0400 Scott W Brim <sbrim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I agree completely with Bob. I want to point out one issue where vigilance will be important:
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 12:39:53PM -0700, Bob Hinden allegedly wrote:Housing the IETF administrative activity in ISOC seems to me to be a much simpler solution to our administrative problems and will require much less work to get it set up. I am concerned that the independent approach will take considerably more cycles and work from the IETF leadership to get it set up and functioning. This will take away from working on what I consider to be more important problems.
I agree in principle but part of what got us into this situation was the feeling that we could just let ISOC (and/or CNRI) just take care of the non-technical details. Let's avoid even leaning that way this time.
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf