Inline.
At 11:16 AM -0700 9/27/04, Tony Hain wrote:
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'.
Hmm. If I understand C correctly, the meeting fees are intended to be the funding source with augmentation (if needed) by fund raising done by ISOC. Such a threat would be going to ISOC, then, just as it would be under O.
The same argument could be made about ISOC's donors and the RFC Editor decisions and/or appeals decisions. Such interference has not, to my knowledge, ever occurred. Whether this is because ISOC has refused donations which came so encumbered or because those who might have offered them recognized ISOC would do so, I don't know. In either case, I don't see your thought experiment producing a different result. regards, Ted Hardie
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf