Uh, oh, solutions again [Re: Definition of power and responsibility [Re:Delegationofpower(wasRE: Section 2.4ofdraft-ietf-problem-statement-00.txt)]]

[Brian E Carpenter]

Focussing on one point from Eric's reply
(I think we have exhausted ourselves on the other points):

Eric Rescorla wrote:

> > Because changing this (e.g. by making IETF
> > a legal component of ISOC, or by separately incorporating IETF) 
> > would be a step with tremendous indirect consequences.
> What do you think those consequences would be?

1. If IETF became a formal part of ISOC, it would be governed
by the ISOC Board, instead of being merely nurtured as at present.
The IETF would then be perceived as being controlled by the
companies that are organizational members of ISOC and who elect
the largest section of the ISOC Board, under ISOC's new governance
structure. It's impossible to predict what changes future ISOC
Boards might decide, but the notion of the IETF as essentially
self-governing and populated by individual engineers would be
eroded if not lost completely.

2. If IETF incorporated on its own, it would either 

a) be a consortium with a number of industrial members, in which 
case the notions of complete openness and individual participation 
would both be under great threat, and the notion of self-governance 
by engineers would be DOA, or

b) be an association of paying individual members with a formal
governance structure, Board, CEO etc. To some extent, this is what
ISOC originally tried to be, and failed (hence its recent governance
reform). While this solution might be structured to avoid throwing
out IETF's basic principles of openness and self-governance, the
ISOC experience shows that it is in fact a high risk strategy. In fact,
I'd go so far as to say "been there, done that."

(A combination of a) and b) is exactly what ISOC already is today.)

   Brian