> sob@xxxxxxxxxxx (scott bradner) writes: > > one example from section 3.1 - > > Although the approval of the ISOC President/CEO or ISOC Board of > > Trustees may be required for some contracts, their review should be > > limited to protecting ISOC's liabilities and financial stability. > > > > This says that the ISOC president (or accountant or lawyer) is not > > permitted to tell the IAD that they know that a proposed contractor is a > > dead beat and never gets anything done - or that they spotted a flaw in > > the bid that could double the cost - that seems very silly indeed - I > > see no reason that the ISOC folk can not be full partners in evaluation > > processes with the IAD (and IAOC) making the final decisions - anything > > less is willfully putting the IAD, IAOC and ISOC in a non optimum place. > > I understand that the general desire is for the IAD to operate without > > nitpicking from the ISOC folk but an bright line of separate thinking > > zones is far from the best way to do that > > I think the key point here is to distinguish the kinds of comments > ISOC can make--which I agree should be relatively unconstrained > from the grounds on which they can refuse to approve, which > should be tightly constrained. I think this can be easily > solved by slightly wordsmithing the last sentence, to read: > > approval may not be denied for any reason other than > protecting ISOC's liabilities and financial stability. I think that my main point was not clear enough - the current wording implies that ISOC folk (accountant, President/CEO, lawyer, etc - but not BoT) are not permitted be part of the RFP response review process and are not primitted to warn the IAD and IAOC that the contractor they want to sign up has a bad track record or that the proposed contract itself has a significant legal flaw - this seems basically broken to me I was NOT addressing the question that ekr's proposed wording talks to (if the ISOC has to agree to a contract that the IAD/IAOC have recommended ) I was trying to address the RFP response review phase of the process speciifcally I think that the ISOC staff & President/CEO need to be in the review loop. I think the document must not exclude that possibility. ekr's suggested wording is fine with one (to me important) addition - the proposed contract needs to fit within the agreed-to budget Scott _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf