Joel... just to be clear...
I suspect that in the below you meant
IASA (IETF Administrative Support Activity)
which is defined in Scenario O
and not
IASF (IETF Administartive Support Foundation)
which is defined in Scenario C
Bert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 16:35
> To: ietf@xxxxxxxx
> 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 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". As written, it presumes that
> there is exactly one bank account, and that separation of funds is by bank
> control. While the later is probably a good idea, I don't think this BCP
> is the place to call that out. And the exact number of bank accounts used
> by IASF (0, 1, 5, or ...) is not a concern for this BCP.
>
> 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
> impossible schedule or assumes facts not in evidence.
>
> Yours,
> Joel M. Halpern
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf