Brian E Carpenter <brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > I respectfully disagree. The legal thread for our entire standards > process hangs on the Board motions that approved 2026 etc. I don't agree with this assessment. IETF's legitimacy as a standards body depends on people both inside and outside the IETF recognizing and implementing its standards, not on whether ISOC ratifies the process or not. > 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. Maybe it's just that I'm a security guy, but the word "trust" here makes me very uncomfortable. We're setting up a situation in which the IETF's ability to operate is completely conditional on ISOC behaving in the way indicated in the BCP. Given that, I think it's quite appropriate to have ISOC constrained to behave substantially in that fashion. Sure, changing your bylaws is hard, but that's precisely why a bylaw change and not just a board motion is what we need. -Ekr _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf