> Yes. I have a feeling that even with the BCP approved by the IESG > and by an ISOC Board motion, we would still need a piece of paper with > ink signatures - it might only say that the IETF and ISOC agree to the > terms of the BCP - it might also contain termination clauses about > money and IPR, if the termination clauses aren't in the BCP. In any > case it would be very short. In terms of the ink, you can go that route if you want, but having this bcp go through the entire public bcp procedure and then get voted on by the isoc board in a meeting with minutes makes a pretty conclusive case that you have an agreement. I don't think a judge is going to throw this out because you didn't use a #2 pencil or blue ink. :) In terms of clauses, it seems to me that if you're going to do termination clauses, or anything else with that kind of substance, they need to get into the BCP. You really want a single chartering document for the activity. And, my "sense of the room" is that people aren't going to be happy to put this doc to bed only to start a similar exercise right up. :) Let's get the substance into the one doc. You brought up termination clauses. If you're doing that, you probably want a mandatory arbitration/mediation or other conflict resolution clause. You could certainly leave those both out and have a nice agreement, but it sort of sounds to me like enough people want to face those issues now. Regards, Carl _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf