Olafur,
this is to acknowledge receipt of your petition.
I also inform the IETF community that I will appoint a Recall Committee Chair
shortly.
Regards,
Lynn St.Amour
Internet Society President & CEO
On Nov 6, 2012, at 4:56 PM, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
>
> Lynn,
>
&g
Hi Dave and Hannes,
Thank you for triggering this useful discussion. And thank you to
Brian, Patrik and Lucy for their comments as well. A number of good
points have been raised both on the topic and others on the ISOC-IETF
intersection.These are items to be taken up with the ISOC Boa
Leslie,
this works for ISOC.
Lynn
At 11:15 AM -0500 2/11/05, Leslie Daigle wrote:
That makes the entire abstract:
"
This document describes the structure of the IETF Administrative Support
Activity (IASA) as an activity housed within the Internet Society
(ISOC). It defines the roles and responsibil
Per Harald's request, ISOC's legal counsel reviewed the latest
version of the IASA BCP and suggested a number of minor changes.
These changes are not intended to be substantive, but rather to
accommodate legalese or to improve clarity (in a legal sense). The
changes have been reviewed by and a
At 1:25 PM +0100 1/26/05, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
Having seen some more reactions... I think we can solve
the "general Ledger Accounts" issue with a very simple
addition as follows:
As discussed with ISOC, funds managed by IASA shall
At 8:16 AM +0100 1/17/05, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Thanks for the comments, Lynn!
--On søndag, januar 16, 2005 18:03:35 -0500
"Lynn St.Amour" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-- In 2.2 principle 8 - note: this is not a critical change, but it may
be helpful to more accurately
Margaret,
I agree with your point below but I do feel it is helpful to state
what ISOC's intended implementation is: a Cost Center within ISOC.
This should not override the section (principle) you quote below.
Perhaps we can add language at the beginning of this section to
clarify all this (or
technical (terms) meets accountancy?
I'll address Margaret's comments separately, as while I understand
and agree with her position, I think it's appropriate to provide a
bit more specificity in the BCP if only to minimize surprises
downstream.
Regards,
Lynn St.Amour
___
At 1:57 PM +0100 1/17/05, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
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 where the money goes.
I'm worried we're getting too detailed but in the
At 8:17 PM -0500 1/15/05, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
I have a few comments on the latest IASA BCP draft, attached below.
I don't think that I disagree with the document in any major way,
but there are a few sections that are unclear enough (to me, anyway)
that I'd like to see them clarified befor
At 11:43 PM +0100 1/14/05, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Folks,
as you can see, version -04 is out.
It should reflect pretty accurately the items that seemed to have
consensus as of last night; on still open issues, it contains either
the same text as before or some proposed text.
Harald,
I hav
At 8:44 AM -0500 12/26/04, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Hi Bert,
W.r.t. the "divisional" vs "cost center" coounting
We got the text on "Divisional Accounting" and on "sepearet set of
accounts" from Glenn Ricart, so what should it be. If we do make a
change we need to make it consistent over the wh
Hi Bert,
At 3:40 PM +0100 12/23/04, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
Inline
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Leslie
Daigle
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 22:29
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; Lynn St.Amour
Subject: Re: IASA BCP
At 10:37 AM -0800 12/13/04, Eric Rescorla wrote:
I agree with that, but that doesn't mean that our interests
are entirely aligned. Indeed, partnerships are a situation
in which it pays to take particular care to one's contracting
arrangements because the respective point of alignment and
disalignme
At 5:46 AM -0800 12/13/04, Eric Rescorla wrote:
As I read this section, the intention is to ensure that donors
who wish their funds to be used by IASA can do so easily, rather
than being forced to donate them to ISOC in general. I don't
think this is actually an instance in which our interests
are
At 2:41 PM +0100 12/13/04, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I've gone various ways on this, but I think that imposing a duty of
regular payment on ISOC is appropriate - so that paying the IETF
late doesn't become a tempting cash-flow management tool. I would
be happy with a phrasing that asks for at least
Bert, Rob,
please find below comments on "reserves". Thanks again for all your efforts.
Section 2.2
7. The IASA shall
work with ISOC to (?)
establish a target for a reserve fund to cover normal operating
expenses and meeting expenses in accordance with prudent planning,
and ISOC shall work
Re:
ISOC shall create and maintain appropriate structures and programs
to coordinate donations intended to support the work of the IETF,
and these will include mechanisms for both in-kind and direct
contributions to the work supported by IASA. Since ISOC will be the
sole entity through who
Harald, Scott,
This is much better and gives a good degree of flexibility.
Regards,
Lynn
At 11:31 AM +0100 12/2/04, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
I don't think there is any principle in 2.2 that forms a basis for
saying that we need to aim towards limiting IETF support to meeting
fees and design
Harald, yes, that would read much better and is closer to what I
believe our combined intent was/is.
Regards,
Lynn
At 11:23 AM +0100 12/2/04, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
I think a global s/deposited in/credited to/ will do the right
thing, given Rob's explanation of "divisional accounting",
At 10:16 AM -0500 11/28/04, John C Klensin wrote:
Hi.
As we try to raise other things back to the level of principles,
I want to address one that seems to underlie some of the
thinking that has led to what I believe to be too-specific, and
probably misguided, provisions in the draft.
snip...
(2) A
At 4:49 PM -0500 9/8/04, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 9/8/04 at 4:54 PM -0400, Lynn St.Amour wrote:
Should the IETF incorporate as a separate entity...
To date, there has been no proposal, in Carl's document or otherwise
as far as I know, for *the IETF* to incorporate as a separate
entity. There
At 8:55 AM -0400 9/8/04, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Wednesday, 08 September, 2004 09:21 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
And that's exactly why the liability insurance policy held by
> ISOC covers IETF "officials" today.
Would someone who actually knows or can find out care t
easons, so there is no direct
individual solicitation (unless the opportunity presents itself at
the IETF meeting itself).
All interested parties though are welcome to just reply to this memo.
Lynn St.Amour
President - ISOC
24 matches
Mail list logo
