Re: Scenario C or Scenario O ? - I say let us go for C !

["Spencer Dawkins" <spencer at mcsr-labs.org>]

From: "Margaret Wasserman" <margaret at thingmagic.com>
To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen at lucent.com>; <ietf at ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 8:36 AM
Subject: Re: Scenario C or Scenario O ? - I say let us go for C !


> Hi Bert,
>
> Both you and Ted have posted preferences for Scenario C that, to me, 
> seem to say "We will eventually have to go to Scenario C, anyway, so 
> we should undertake that effort today rather than leaving it for 
> later."  This might be a compelling argument if it were clear to me 
> that we will need to move to Scenario C in the future.  Could you 
> explain why you think that would be desireable?  What are the 
> practical advantages that you see to having two separate 
> corporations (ISOC and the IASF), one responsible for fund raising 
> and some standards-related tasks, and the other responsible for our 
> administrative support?

There was also the assumption that if we go with O and it turns out 
that we should have gone with C, it will be just as slow and painful 
getting to this point again as it was the first time.

Why would this be true? It's at least as likely that we would say "we 
should have made the other choice" and start moving to C - a shorter 
distance that it is now.

My non-random sample of second marriages is that they tend to either 
last or end more quickly than first marriages. That's a bad analogy, 
but I think the principle applies ("we've been here before and 
changing things was the right thing to do, so why wait now?").

Spencer 



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf