[9402] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Aikens last (but long) posting/comments on ISOC and related issues
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Erik Huizer (SURFnet BV))
Tue Jan 4 12:01:20 1994
To: AIKEN@ccc.nersc.gov
Cc: braden@isi.edu, ietf@ietf.cnri.reston.va.us, com-priv@psi.com,
In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 04 Jan 94 07:49:56 -0800. <940104074956.20408e1e@CCC.NERSC.GOV>
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 94 17:59:09 +0100
From: "Erik Huizer (SURFnet BV)" <Erik.Huizer@surfnet.nl>
Bob,
I am not someone to easily get angry, but you almpost got me so far in
asking:
==> From: AIKEN@ccc.nersc.gov
> In reply to Bob B's statement that there would be no operational
> coordination issues until there is consensus: I ask 3 questions:
> 1) Why is there still talk about a bof to investigate this
> very issue at the next IETF mtg?
BECAUSE, and if you had followed discussion on the qed list you should know
this, within the IETF community, a community btw that exists of people that
are not necesserily ISOC members, there rae many isuues that have passed
beyond standards making, like e.g. x500 operations on the Internet, and that
are desperately searching for a home for operational meetings. In teh
discussion on the qed list it turned out that IEPG may be such a home but
that most of these issues are currently not within their turf (yet). We then
suggested a BOF on this at an IETF because there are many people there who
are interested in this issue. NOT because it SHOULD become an operational WG
in the IETF, and certainly NOT because ISOC want operational power. (Please
shout the words printed in capitals so as to make clear that they are there
:-)
I leave it to others to answer other questions you may have.
I don't mind (you) being critical of ISOC, I do mind the suggestion that
IETF is an integral part of Isoc, it isn't.
Erik
