--On 14. januar 2005 12:13 -0800 Ted Hardie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If so, I think that is a reasonable approach. If you want to leave it up
to
ISOC discussion to determine whether a resolution is sufficient, I suggest
the following:
NEW:
2.5 Effective Date for Commencement of IASA
The
Ted,
to your point on form of board resolutions accepting IETF procedures:
Resolution 96-11, which accepted the POISED documents, read:
RESOLVED, that the Board accept the POISED Documents: The Organisations
Involved in the IETF Standards Process, IAB and IESG Selection,
Confirmation, and Recall
John C Klensin wrote:
Pete,
I still think this is misdirected energy.
But, in the interest of finding a reasonable compromise and
moving on, let me make a suggestion:
(1) We let the current text and resolution style stand,
so that bylaw changes don't become a gating factor [note
I agree with Brian John K.
John L.
-- original message --
Subject:Re: Suggest no change: #739 Assuring ISOC commitment to
AdminRest
From: Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 01/14/2005 11:49 am
John C Klensin wrote:
Pete,
I still think this is misdirected energy
At 9:59 AM +0100 1/14/05, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
I couldn't find an example of a resolution that accepts an IETF
procedure BCP without such a clause, but I probably missed it... an
amendment to the BCP that says and has been affirmed by a
resolution of the ISOC Board of Trustees
I believe #739 is a matter that requires ISOC to form an opinion - it is
not something that the IETF needs to come to consensus about, and it should
not affect the text of the BCP.
As Brian Carpenter said:
I'm not saying a bylaw change would be a bad thing, in due time.
But ISOC can get a Board
On 1/13/05 at 1:34 PM +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
I believe #739 is a matter that requires ISOC to form an opinion
I agree; ISOC must suggest the mechanism by which they will agree to
this partnership.
it is not something that the IETF needs to come to consensus about,
and it should
--On 13. januar 2005 13:23 -0600 Pete Resnick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, I don't think there was any disagreement (including from Brian)
that text needed to be added of the form:
This BCP will take effect upon adoption of the BCP by the IESG and the
concurrent insert thing that ISOC does
On my re-reading of the thread, I think:
. you are right that there wasn't substantive disagreement on
the inclusion of the text:
This BCP will take effect upon adoption of the BCP by the IESG and the
concurrent insert thing that ISOC does which codifies in some
interesting way the
Pete Resnick [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 1/13/05 at 1:34 PM +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
As Brian Carpenter said:
I'm not saying a bylaw change would be a bad thing, in due
time. But ISOC can get a Board motion through in about 2 weeks,
whereas a bylaw change takes several months.
FYI:
The ISOC bylaws are at
http://www.isoc.org/isoc/general/trustees/bylaws.shtml
The ISOC articles of incorporation are at
http://www.isoc.org/isoc/general/trustees/incorp.shtml
They are very interesting reading, not only for what they contain, but for
what they do not contain.
Hi Harald,
One comment to this, inline.
At 8:42 PM +0100 1/13/05, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On 13. januar 2005 13:23 -0600 Pete Resnick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, I don't think there was any disagreement (including from Brian)
that text needed to be added of the form:
This
On 1/13/05 at 5:25 PM -0500, Leslie Daigle wrote:
. but I disagree that there was considerable support for filling
the with by-law changes in ISOC.
I think you're right that there wasn't overt support for by-law
changes. On the other hand, I think there was at least some group of
folks
Well,
Pete Resnick wrote:
That said, let me offer a few thoughts on why I specifically don't
think a by-law change is what you want. The by-laws deal primarily in
the mechanics of ISOCs structural implementation:
Not so of Article VI, sections 2 5, which seem somewhat akin (though
less
Pete,
I still think this is misdirected energy.
But, in the interest of finding a reasonable compromise and
moving on, let me make a suggestion:
(1) We let the current text and resolution style stand,
so that bylaw changes don't become a gating factor [note
1 below].
To be clear: I think that for insert thing that ISOC does, we
should have what is currently in the BCP:
2.5 Effective Date for Commencement of IASA
The procedures in this document shall become operational immediately
after this document has been approved by the process defined in BCP 9
note that in the resolutions that accepted the IETF process BCPs
(2026 for example) also had text that said that the ISOC aggreed to
undertake the role described in the document for the ISOC
i.e. I would expect that both would be in a single motion
Scott
17 matches
Mail list logo
