Subject: RE: Time horizon, contingencies, and destinations (was scenarios 0 and C)

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 11:09:40 -0700

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.
			regards,
				Ted Hardie

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 11:16:50 -0700

> 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'. 

Tony

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 12:06:59 +0200

--On 27. september 2004 11:16 -0700 Tony Hain <[email-masked]> 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'.

It is also not hard to see the PR impact of this particular scenario being 
exposed in the pages of the IT press......

If people stop caring about the independence of the standards process to 
the point that this can happen without a) a severe PR black eye to the 
company trying it and b) offers for alternative/matching funding, then we 
have already lost the ability to do independent standardization.

(OTOH, the threat of "become effective or we'll walk away" has already been 
delivered in many ways, forms and voices. And although we've all got 
varying opinions about what "effective" means, I think those calls have had 
an effect on the organization. That's good, not bad. IMHO.)

                          Harald