Ted Hardie wrote:
At 4:48 PM +0100 1/19/05, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
Harald responds to Lynn
Lynn,
I actually disagree here.
The mind-picture I think we want to establish through using
accounts is
rows of numbers that can be added up to get totals - we want to
know what
it's costing, and
Scott Bradner wrote:
harald suggets
The IAOC attempts to reach consensus on all decisions.
If the IAOC cannot achieve a consensus decision, then
the IAOC may decide by voting.
looks good to me
Agreed
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
I full agree with Harald on this
Brian
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
In #787, Margaret raised a couple of terminology questions related to
the terms:
- IASA Accounts
- IETF accounts
- ISOC Standards pillar
In discussion, it seems clear that IETF accounts is a mistake, and
should be changed
Scott Bradner wrote:
Harald asks if no change on firing the whole group is OK
its ok by me
me too.
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Scott Bradner wrote:
Harald asks:
2.5 Effective Date for Commencement of IASA
The procedures in this document shall become operational
after this document has been approved by the process defined in
BCP 9 [RFC2026] , including its
Michael StJohns wrote:
At a minimum, I'd explicitly prohibit review of the IADs actions
by any body except the IAOC - direct the review to the IAOC only.
I think this is correct, managerially. That way the IAD knows who
his or her boss is, and that is important. But there is nothing
in
Fred,
we went into the topic of whether a separate MoU was required at the
beginning of December (thread with subject Adminrest: IASA BCP:
Separability, subthread started by brian Carpenter on December 2), and
concluded that no other document should be necessary.
A few cycles ago, while we
--On torsdag, januar 20, 2005 00:00:36 -0500 Michael StJohns
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you (general plural) really feel this section needs to stand I think
you need to address at least two issues and narrow them substantially:
who has standing to ask for a formal review? and on what specific
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Franck Martin
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 10:58 AM
To: xie wei; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [IGOVAP]Re:another discussion about
management of root server
Why so
I was groggier than I thought. Wasted one of my three
allowed postings when my finger sent off my earlier post without permission.
Franck also added:
I take also the opportunity to add something else
on another subject:
ICANN, IETF, APNIC and other meetings are really
easy to
Hmm, its my upgraded-Windows commands.
Franck also added:
I take also the opportunity to add something else
on another subject:
ICANN, IETF, APNIC and other meetings are really
easy to attend, they
are video casted, audio casted and even text
casted in chat/forum like
channels.
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Hmm. I think this bothers me a lot unless
a) unsuccessful bidders and their agents
and
b) unsuccessful job candidates
are explicitly excluded. Otherwise, every time
the IASA awards a contract or hires somebody, they are
exposed to public attack by the unsuccessful.
In
It is my opinion that an organization independent of any other
ineterests should be placed in charge of the root servers. This way,
no one organization can claim ownership of the DNS roots.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
3.5 Decision review
In the case where someone questions a decision of the IAD or the
IAOC, he or she may ask for a formal review of the decision.
The request for review is addressed to the person or body that made
the decision. It is up to that body to decide to make a response,
and on the
Hi,
In general I am happy with this formulation. Some comments below.
On 19 jan 2005, at 09.38, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
--
3.5 Decision review
In the case where someone believes that a decision of the IAD or the
IAOC
either need an extra
At 06:25 AM 1/20/2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On torsdag, januar 20, 2005
00:00:36 -0500 Michael StJohns [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
If you (general plural) really
feel this section needs to stand I think
you need to address at least two issues and narrow them
substantially:
who has
Hi.
Scott Brim is doing the main (gen-art) review of this document but I
started so here is my twopennorth...
I have come to this with relatively fresh eyes since I have stayed out of
the governance discussions since my work on the problem WG a while back and
have only just started following
Again. I agree with Sam and John here. Getting out of the over specification
here is important. The IASA will need to write-up some rules, but I think this
BCP is the wrong place, having some operational experience is important.
John L.
-- original message --
Subject:Re: Last Call
This is a follow up to Harald's message of Jan 10.
(http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg33578.html)
Section 7 of the -04 version of the Structure of the IETF Administrative
Support Activity (IASA) Internet-Draft mentions that any (positive) balance
in the IASA accounts (among
Inline,
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 3:24 PM
Subject: Resolution? #787 terminology - in particular ISOC Standards
Pillar
In #787, Margaret raised a couple of terminology questions
Steve's email caused me to think, but first let me say that this should not be
in the BCP. Is it a correct assumption to think that the IASA will give an
update at every IETF plenary, along the lines of IANA and the RFC Editor? I
would hope so.
John L.
-- original message --
Subject:
--On torsdag, januar 20, 2005 20:13:21 +0200 John Loughney
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve's email caused me to think, but first let me say that this should
not be in the BCP. Is it a correct assumption to think that the IASA
will give an update at every IETF plenary, along the lines of IANA
Brian == Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian I think that is not really a concern. If someone has a
Brian grievance that is serious enough for them to hire a lawyer
Brian to make a complaint, no words in an RFC will stop them. But
Brian the right words in an RFC
Hi -
I agree with Tom that this is kind of confused, and I think there is some
potential fast and loose use of the language of accountancy. :))
I think the vague term accounts is just fine for the purpose we are
engaged in. I think all we're trying to say is that the ietf community
would like
On Thursday, January 20, 2005 15:07:27 -0500 John C Klensin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On Wednesday, 19 January, 2005 23:16 -0500 Jeffrey Hutzelman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I _think_ the intent is that the published BCP will represent
a formal agreement between ISOC and the IETF, but of course
--On Wednesday, 19 January, 2005 14:24 +0100 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Version -04 says the following about firing IAOC members:
IAOC members are subject to recall in the event that an
IAOC member
abrogates his or her duties or acts against the best
interests
With Kind regards,
Wen Wu
Technology Center, ZTE Corporation
5/F., A Wing ,ZTE Plaza,Keji Road South
Hi-Tech Industrial Park,Shenzhen,P.R.China
Zip code:518057
Tel:+86 755 26771514 (local: 1514)
Fax:+86 755 26770324 (local: 0324)
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 3974
Title: SMTP Operational Experience in Mixed IPv4/v6
Environments
Author(s): M. Nakamura, J. Hagino
Status: Informational
Date: January 2005
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 3976
Title: Interworking SIP and Intelligent Network (IN)
Applications
Author(s): V. K. Gurbani, F. Haerens, V. Rastogi
Status: Informational
Date:
29 matches
Mail list logo
