Eric Rescorla wrote:
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...
I respectfully disagree. The legal thread for our entire standards
process hangs on the Board motions that approved 2026 etc. Having
sweated hard as ISOC Chair to get the last major updates to the
by-laws through, I don't think it's reasonable to ask them for
a by-law about this - at least not as a prerequisite for the
kickoff. I will trust a Board motion.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf