Yes. Seems odd to have procedure for making procedures and everything else but nothing formal about an umbrella organization that sits between us and the real world. Seems counter to the well documented openess that seems to be a core tenent of everything else that goes on. -T -----Original Message----- From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul Hoffman / VPNC Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 1:29 PM To: ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: On the difference between scenarios A and B in Carl's report At 7:57 PM +0200 9/6/04, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: >It seems to me that we are rapidly converging on one point of total >IETF consensus: > > Putting the IETF administrative function under ISOC requires a > documented IETF-ISOC agreement (call it an MoU, a contract or > something else - it IS a document, it IS an agreement and it DOES have two parties). > >Agreed? Agreed. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf