Ted Hardie wrote: > At 10:59 AM -0700 9/27/04, Tony Hain wrote: > > At the > >same time, if we go down the path of more stable centralized fund-raising > by > >the scenario C proposed Independent Corporation, there are likely to be > some > >strong strings (ropes/chains) attached to that funding with the > >implicit/explicit intent to influence the outcome of the technical > efforts. > >Call it a membership organization or not, the outcome of this environment > is > >that those who are providing the funds will be in a position to demand > their > >way on technical issues through the threat of pulling the money. > > If the Independent Corporation were intended to be the IETF, I would > agree, but I with an incorporated administrative entity, I don't think > this is an issue. At least in my reading, neither O or C proposes > any changes to the standards process or ISOC's role in it. There is nothing explicitly proposed in C, but run the thought experiment of what would happen if a major contributor to the administrative entity threatened to pull funding if X didn't happen on the technical process side. It is not hard to get to the point of 'do X or fold the organization for lack of funds'. Tony > regards, > Ted Hardie _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf