> > 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. > > my lawyer-paranoia may get the better of me, but.... if the IETF remains a > legal "null", I have to wonder what my signature on a piece of paper > means, > or could be made to mean..... I've passed this to Jorge (lawyer) for an > opinion. This is not different from previous agreements between ISOC and IETF such as for example the approval of the IETF process. The usual procedure is: 1. The IETF prepares and publishes an RFC detailing the procedure. This is the formal IETF "ink". 2. The £50 board of trustees passes a resolution approving the RFC. This is the ISOC "ink". Simple, and uses the tools of each organization. -- Christian Huitema. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf