Scenario O promises a distinctive IETF administrative entity within ISOC's
legal framework.
The problems establishing a directly IETF controlled entity emerge from the
informality and porous boundaries of the IETF. It is perfectly possible to
resolve these but it will take a lot of time and
On Thursday, September 23, 2004 22:17:14 -0700 Tony Hain
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well the I-D Editor is a fundamental cornerstone in our document process,
and therefore deserves to be explicit. Personally I don't have a problem
with moving the function to better align with the RFC Editor's
Some comments:
2.1.4 - 6 months for the reserve is a funny number for an organization where
the nominal income period is 4 months. Wouldn't it make more sense to spell
out a reserve that covered a disaster case of a canceled meeting after the
contracts had been signed? Something like:
Also, in
I think that this (scenario 0) is the right approach to follow. It appears
to me to be the lowest risk path consistent with the needs that have been
identified.
Two minor comments:
1) The references to the IASF bank account should probably be relaxed to
IASF fund accounts or IASF accounts.
Hi Tony,
Great feedback. Thanks! A few comments in-line:
At 1:08 AM -0700 9/23/04, Tony Hain wrote:
2.1.4 - 6 months for the reserve is a funny number for an organization where
the nominal income period is 4 months. Wouldn't it make more sense to spell
out a reserve that covered a disaster case
. Halpern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 16:35
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Scenario O Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on where from
here
I think that this (scenario 0) is the right approach to
follow. It appears
to me to be the lowest risk path consistent
-
From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 16:35
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Scenario O Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on where from
here
I think that this (scenario 0) is the right approach to
follow. It appears
to me to be the lowest risk
At 1:08 AM -0700 9/23/04, Tony Hain wrote:
2.1.4 - 6 months for the reserve is a funny number for an organization where
the nominal income period is 4 months. Wouldn't it make more sense to spell
out a reserve that covered a disaster case of a canceled meeting after the
contracts had been
Hi Joel,
At 10:35 AM -0400 9/23/04, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Two minor comments:
1) The references to the IASF bank account should probably be
relaxed to IASF fund accounts or IASF accounts. As written, it
presumes that there is exactly one bank account, and that separation
of funds is by bank
--On 23. september 2004 10:35 -0400 Joel M. Halpern
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2) The schedule calls for seating the IAOC on January 15, and hiring the
IAD by the end of January. Given that the search committee can not be
appointed until the board is seated, it seems that item is either an
--On Thursday, 23 September, 2004 11:09 -0400 Margaret Wasserman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Given that the schedule has the interim IAOC formed in
November and the IAD hired in January, I think that this may
be reasonable. The interim IAOC would be hard put to organize
themselves and get
--On Thursday, 23 September, 2004 11:09 -0400 Margaret Wasserman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Given that the schedule has the interim IAOC formed in
November and the IAD hired in January, I think that this may
be reasonable. The interim IAOC would be hard put to organize
themselves and get
But I bet not for tragic events like terrorist strikes/threats or war related
issues. So setting up some reserves of our own seems better to me.
those options are not exclusive
it's a very good idea to have reserves, its also a good idea to
explore event cancellation insurance
Scott
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
...
2.3 Budget -
The specific timeline will be established each year, before the
second IETF meeting.
Wouldn't it be cleaner to just specify that the budget process will be
completed in the first half of the calendar year? That would be more
consistent
Leslie and Harald somewhat challenged me in private to review
Scenario O more deeply, to indicate the bits of it that may need
more work - since otherwise we might miss showstoppers.
So I have sone so, below, but with the proviso that this
is the scenario I prefer - so my comments should be taken
I'd like to express general support for scenario O.
I probably will not have time to read the document in sufficient
detail to agree with every point, but this looks like a good
direction.
--Sam
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Following up on my note from this morning...
Leslie Daigle wrote:
Accordingly, some people volunteered to write down some text
for each, drawing on and extending Carl's documents. The
outcome of that writing exercise will be circulated here
later today -- i.e., a note describing a possible
17 matches
Mail list logo
