-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 All, I suppose you are aware of the next ISOC board meeting in Marrakesh is on the 1/2 July 2006 (www.isoc.org) While I have kept an eye on the IETF list for qite some time, I still consider myself a newbie in the relationship ISOC/IETF. I'm trying to better understand it especially with this reform process, so any point of view is interesting for me. I also find the IETF is doing a great job but not sure how to best help it. IETF is 20 years old, I also hope to learn more during a workshop at www.egeni.org on the historic role of IETF (22 June 2006, Paris). Cheers Brian E Carpenter wrote: | Ran, | | RJ Atkinson wrote: | |> Previously, someone wrote: |> |>> I finished reading the RFC editor document and have one major |>> concern. |>> |>> Ultimately, the rfc-editor function needs to be accountable to |>> the IETF community because we're the ones paying for it. |> |> |> |> Incorrect. As I pointed out some weeks ago, and Leslie has |> recently repeated, IETF has never paid for the RFC-Editor. |> |> Historically, RFC-Editor was created by (D)ARPA and paid by |> (D)ARPA. More recently, some large commercial firms have donated |> substantial funds to ISOC -- with the understanding that the |> RFC-Editor would be among the functions paid for from those |> funds. [1] | | | I would like to suggest a qualification to this. Things have | changed over time. When DARPA stopped funding ISI to perform the | RFC Editor function, ISOC stepped in to fill the gap. Subsequently, | ISOC also provided a discretionary fund for the IETF Chair, and | extended its liability insurance to cover the IETF leadership. (At | some point, the discretionary fund was split between the IETF Chair | and the IAB Chair.) In 2000/2001, ISOC consolidated these | expenditures in its "standards pillar" accounting. Subsequently, | and most recently, ISOC agreed to host IASA, which is now the | funding agency for all of the above plus meeting expenses and the | Secretariat. So whatever the historical situation, the *current* | situation is that a single budget is fed by ISOC member | contributions, ISOC donations, and IETF attendance fees, and the | RFC Editor contract is just one item in that budget. | | This doesn't contradict Ran's statement of the history in the | least. | | With reference to Ran's note [1], my recollection of numerous | meetings of the ISOC Advisory Council of organizational members is | that representatives there consistently stated support of the | "standards pillar" as their primary motivation for supporting ISOC. | Of course they knew that historically the bulk of the money in that | pillar was going to support the RFC publication process, prior to | the creation of IASA. | | - -- - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Franck Martin franck@xxxxxxxxx "Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question" G. Bachelard -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEhCTlvnmeYIHZEyARAtTBAJwLUb5A7+mdSjDPGxaVY/9LGSDMlACeIYxh MWceB9CzA8a/Wr6V7oZZSfM= =vYIH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf