Sorry to mix names.
Yours, Joel
At 05:12 PM 9/23/2004 +0200, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
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