Ronda Hauben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Greg Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I actually think the IETF is a model organization for this type of
>>project. However, I don't know that the man or woman on the street
>>feels likewise.
>My guess is that there are problems with the IETF, expecially since
>the U.S. govt support for it has been withdrawn which I thought
>happened just a year or two ago.
Perhaps I should clarify my previous statement. I think the IETF
*model* of membership and participation is ideal for ICANN
representation. The IETF *model* offers the type of bottom-up, open,
individual-oriented process that is called for by the White Paper. It
is also open to anyone, with very minimal requirements (e.g. most
dialogue is conducted via email, drafts and standards are required to
be published as ascii text files, etc.).
I wasn't trying to suggest or imply that the IETF *body* should be
incorporated into ICANN in any particular way.
But since you brought it up ...
>I have heard from a friend who tried to participate in it as she is
>from an academic situation in another country. She proposed an RFC
>from her work and couldn't afford to go to the meeting because
>since she works in academic and the IETF doesn't function via supporting
>papers, she was unable to get funding to go. Her suggested RFC
>was ignored and the mailing list then went onto other topics.
Could you tell us who your friend was, what working groups she
participated in, and what drafts she wrote? I would like to look over
the mailing lists and WG proceedings to see what she did.
--gregbo
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
