Dave,
Dave Crocker wrote:
... I believe that policy concerns are best addressed by
ISOC. Because ISOC's role in the standards process is at one
remove, it can work to educate legislatures and
administrations without appearing to favor one participant
over the other.
That sounds wonderful, except that ISOC has no significant experience in that work and that work requires skill and experience.
ISOC, like IETF, is largely a volunteer organization as far as this sort of work is concerned. If the community wants ISOC to take such a role, the community will also have to provide the volunteers.
As has been commented to me repeatedly in recent months, when someone in government wants to obtain advice about the Internet and about Internet policy, they do not regularly consult ISOC. ISOC does not regularly testify in Congress.
ISOC is international and is currently active in WSIS, the international debate including Internet policy issues. If you want ISOC to take part in national policy-setting in your country, it's in your hands. That's one of the things ISOC chapters can do.
And so on.
More generally, as folks postulate spiffy functions for ISOC, it might be worth asking where ISOC's expertise for that function has been demonstrated.
That includes minor items like operational administration of a standards body.
Well, nobody has demonstrated that skill as far as the IETF is concerned, because we've never put *all* the administration into one place. (Disclaimer: this isn't intended as a comment on the separate administrations of the secretariat, IANA, and RFC Editor.) But ISOC has administered itself for the last ten years, through good times and bad.
Brian
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf