Sam,
Sam Hartman wrote:
Bob == Bob Hinden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bob The ISOC is certainly not perfect and has had serious
Bob problems in the past. These problems have been solved and as
Bob far as I can tell the ISOC is working well. I would note
Bob that the ISOC was
I agree completely with Bob. I want to point out one issue where
vigilance will be important:
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 12:39:53PM -0700, Bob Hinden allegedly wrote:
Housing the IETF administrative activity in ISOC seems to me to be a
much simpler solution to our administrative problems and will
Scott,
ISOC was not and is not responsible in any way for the activities performed
by CNRI for the IETF. Your remark suggests that ISOC let the IETF down on
non-technical issues that the IETF was expecting to handle. I am not aware
of any and I'd be interested to know if there are.
As Brian
On Sat, Sep 25, 2004 01:57:50PM +0200, Erik Huizer allegedly wrote:
Your remark suggests that ISOC let the IETF down on non-technical
issues that the IETF was expecting to handle.
Erik, that was not my intention. What I want to avoid is the feeling
that the friendliness of who we deal with,
I just wanted to avoid the wrong impression. Building in strict guarantees
makes sense.
Erik
--On zaterdag 25 september 2004 17:09 -0400 Scott W Brim [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, Sep 25, 2004 01:57:50PM +0200, Erik Huizer allegedly wrote:
Your remark suggests that ISOC let the IETF down on
My current view is that the housing the IETF administrative activity in
ISOC (Scenario O) is the best of the two approaches.
Note: I have no position in the ISOC nor am a current member (or maybe they
do not have members these days). My employer is a corporate member. I was
a member when the
Bob == Bob Hinden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bob The ISOC is certainly not perfect and has had serious
Bob problems in the past. These problems have been solved and as
Bob far as I can tell the ISOC is working well. I would note
Bob that the ISOC was initially set up by
