The following has been received from the Unicode Consortium.
Comments either to Unicode Consortium according to specified
instructions, or to myself as liason from IETF to Unicode Consortium.
Regards, Patrik
Liason from IETF to Unicode Consortium
Begin forwarded message:
From: Rick McG
--On 3. februar 2003 21:07 -0800 Aaron Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well done, Harald! I applaud this move towards 'transparency.'
One question. In the sentence on the finance page where you wrote:
"In the US, this is one way in which hotels recover the cost of
meeting rooms; in one
Well done, Harald! I applaud this move towards 'transparency.'
One question. In the sentence on the finance page where you wrote:
"In the US, this is one way in which hotels recover the cost of
meeting rooms; in one recent query, the secretariat got a quote on
meeting rooms without foo
--On 3. februar 2003 11:33 -0800 Rick Wesson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Harald,
I'd never seen any finances for the ietf, but are these from 2002 or did
it just take that long to pull 2001 expenses together?
these are from 2001. It's been on my TODO list to get them on a web page
forever,
FYI
-rick
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 14:15:30 -0500
Subject: FW: US Grants ICANN Extension of Global Domain Powers
US Grants ICANN Extension of Global Domain Powers
By Kevin Murphy
ICANN, which manages policy aspects of the internet's domain name system, is
Harald,
I'd never seen any finances for the ietf, but are these from 2002 or did
it just take that long to pull 2001 expenses together?
-rick
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> I have put two web pages up at the following URL:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/u/chair/
>
> One details
I have put two web pages up at the following URL:
http://www.ietf.org/u/chair/
One details the directorates that currently exist in the IETF, with
memberships of most of them.
The other one is the IETF finances for 2001.
The presentation format is subject to modification - if you find things
I must admit to some confusion about what Harald is asking for.
The context here is discussion of RFC 2434 "Guidelines for Writing
an IANA Considerations Section" (BCP 26). We're discussing "example"
policies for IANA assignments. Specifically there is:
" IETF Consensus - New values are ass
The IETF_Censored mailing list
At times, the IETF list is subject to debates that have little to do
with the purposes for which the IETF list was created. Some people
would appreciate a "quieter" forum for the relevant debate
Harald and all,
I "Guess" that a IETF consensus really means whatever you Harald
says it means much like what consensus meant while you were
Chair of the DNSO GA. But to be honest, no consensus can be
determined unless it is measured, which means a VOTE must be
held amongst IETF participants.
10 matches
Mail list logo
