On Sun, 26 Sep 2004, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote: > Below is a (slightly augmented) version of my poll response. > I note that I have not attempted to review the proposals in > detail (I rather stay out of these weeds), but believe I > understand the general gist of the scenarios. > > I view Scenario C as overly complex and risky. For instance, > one cannot assume the newly formed corporation will achieve > non-profit status in a timely manner (if at all). > > I view Scenario O as an natural evolution of our existing > operation model. We are today "an organized activity of > the ISOC" and would remain so. Scenario O appears to shifts > certain activities from a service provider (CNRI/Foretec) > to the ISOC and facilitates use of other service providers > if and when that is deemed appropriate. > > I am far more willing to trust ISOC (based upon operational > experience) than some new entity (which we have no operational > experience with). I would be in complete agreement there, particularly since the IETF had had members seated on the ISOC board for some time now. > > For these reasons and more, I strongly prefer Scenario O over C. > > -- Kurt > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > sleekfreak pirate broadcast http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/ _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf