Pete Resnick <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 12/12/04 at 9:06 PM +0100, Bert (Bert) Wijnen wrote: > >> This debate between John and Pete seems to be at such an abstract >> meta level to me, that I have difficulty to try and see what it >> means for the IAS BCP doc that I thinkwe are trying to get consensus >> on. >> >> As I said, it could be just me, but I seem unable to map it to any >> issue(s) with the curremt text in rev 02 of the doc. > > Ignoring John's caricature of my position: I think I am suggesting an > addition to the current BCP which more or less says: > > "This BCP will take effect upon adoption of the BCP by the IESG and > the concurrent <<insert thing that ISOC does which codifies in some > interesting way the adoption of the relationship by ISOC>>" > > I also suggested to insert for the part in <<>>: > > "adoption of an ISOC by-law signifying the adoption of the principles > laid out in this BCP." > > That's it. I think that language like this is a pretty important part of the equation. We've had a lot of discussion about how ISOC agrees to something with an organization that doesn't formally exist, and this seems to be exactly the right kind of answer... -Ekr _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf