Ted Hardie wrote: > > ... > >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. The point is there is no real independence without complete funding, and as I understand the recent budgets we are seriously into 'augmentation is necessary'. Asking ISOC to be the cover organization at the same time you tell them you don't trust them to do the right thing for managing the administrative functions is just silly. If you don't trust them to do the day to day right, why do you trust them to provide cover funding when it is needed? You either trust them or you don't. As I said earlier, the IETF has to recognize that 'going it alone' is not the goal. The core competency is development of technology standards, and administrative management is not something to do in-house. While C claims to be outsourcing, it really isn't. The real differences between C & O are the perception of independence, and the costs. C is nothing more than a fantasy that we can't afford in any case, short or long term. Tony _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf