Hi Richard, thanks for your comments. I am very much aware of the activities of the SIP Forum ;-) Thanks for your work during all these years. A couple of comments inline: > Stephen Farrell is spot on in having some skepticism about mission > statements. FWIW, I myself am not a big fan of mission statements either. Nevertheless, getting staff, the board, and the different communities to think of what ISOC should stand for has been useful, IMHO. As I mentioned elsewhere, in addition to the work on the mission statement, we are also working on defining the scope of ISOC's activities at a more detailed level. In fact, we are working on the three pillars (communities, technology, and policy) and discussing what should be the scope of engagement in each of those areas. > I’m not saying ISOC shouldn’t be involved in implementation and > compliance issues. It could be very useful in kickstarting efforts > by specific protocol communities in self organizing if there is > sufficient consensus to do so, but acting as an overall umbrella for > such efforts IMHO is not the best use of ISOC resources. I personally agree with you that ISOC can be most useful when involved in kickstarting efforts. Currently, we always look into the sustainability of any effort we choose to initially support. Cheers, Gonzalo