[9394] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: More on clarfication of ISOC - actually a reply to Noel's post
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bob Braden)
Mon Jan 3 21:18:47 1994
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 1994 16:34:35 -0800
From: braden@isi.edu (Bob Braden)
To: braden@isi.edu, ALH@eagle.es.net
Cc: com-priv@psi.com, isoc-trustees@cnri.reston.va.us, amr@cnri.reston.va.us,
*> From ietf-request@ietf.cnri.reston.va.us Mon Jan 3 16:21:49 1994
*> Date: Mon, 3 Jan 1994 15:14:03 -0800 (PST)
*> Sender: ietf-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
*> From: Tony Hain <ALH@eagle.es.net>
*> To: braden@ISI.EDU
*> Cc: com-priv@psi.com, ietf@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US,
*> isoc-trustees@CNRI.Reston.VA.US, amr@CNRI.Reston.VA.US,
*> vcerf@CNRI.Reston.VA.US
*> Subject: Re: More on clarfication of ISOC - actually a reply to Noel's post
*> Content-Length: 3687
*> X-Lines: 83
*>
*> In reply to Bob Braden,
*>
*> I think the track of this thread has been lost...In Aiken's original
*> note of Dec. 30 he was asking for a clarfication of the ISOC charter.
*> Not to question its existance, but to understand its breadth.
*>
Tony,
That's fair, but the specific message on which I commented seemed to go
well beyond questions on the ISOC charter.
...
*>
*> I assume it was the 'quasi' part of the democracy that issued the edict:
*> "...the IESG will not charter any new WGs dealing with OSI technology,
*> and will not standardize any protocols dealing with OSI technology."
*>
*>
The IETF is about to go through a new selection cycle, and I think that
those who disagree strongly with this position, as I gather you do, have
a fair shot at kicking the rascals out, if that indeed is the concensus
of the IETF membership.
...
*>
*> I have not heard anyone question the role of ISOC as a protection body,
*> only its ability to govern the global network.
*>
*>
Bob Aiken's message did indeed question the role of ISOC as a
protective body, which prompted my comment.
*>
*> >I don't quite understand your great concern here; it is a non-issue as
*> >far as I know. There has never been a suggestion that the ISOC would
*> >control operation of the Internet. There has been a suggestion that
*> >the ISOC could serve as a locus for organizing coordination groups to
*> >help iron out operational issues, but at present there is no concensus
*> >that this is needed, and it won't happen until there is a concensus.
*>
*> Never is a pretty strong position, you might consider that a suggestion
*> could have been made without your being aware of it. Some extrapolations
*> of the ISOC acting as a locus end up with ISOC controlling.
*>
I'm sorry, I think this fear stretches credibility. Why aren't you
equally worried that IEEE will run amok and take over the telephone
network, to the detriment of DoE?
Bob Braden
(I removed IETF from the distribution... this has rattled enough
mailboxes. The remaining recipients asked for it!)
