See: https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=751 The text suggested by Scott would mean to change: Removability: While there is no current plan to transfer the legal and financial home of the IASA to another corporation, the IASA shall be structured to enable a clean transition in the event that the IETF community decides, through BCP publication, that such a transition is required. into: Removability: While there is no current plan to transfer the legal and financial home of the IASA to another corporation, the IASA shall be structured to enable a clean transition in the event that the IETF community decides, through the publication of a procedure document where a formal assertion of IETF consensus is required (currently called BCP), that such a transition is required. I find that latter sentence harder to read, but I can live with it. I saw Scott (as only one) in favor of the change, while at least 2 people (Harald and Sam) objected. Not clear what I should do. Unless instructed otherwise, I will leave the text alone. Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of > sob@xxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 14:28 > To: harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; sob@xxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-02: section 7 - Removability - BCP > > > Harald sez: > > We don't have a better formal term at the moment for > "procedure document > > where formal assertion of IETF consensus is required". > > why not just say that? > > Removability: While there is no current plan to transfer the legal > and financial home of the IASA to another corporation, the IASA > shall be structured to enable a clean transition in the > event that > the IETF community decides, through the publication of a > procedure document where a formal assertion of IETF consensus > is required. (currently called BCP) ... > > Scott > > --- > Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 06:39:37 +0100 > From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: Scott Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxxxx>, ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-02: section 7 - Removability - BCP > > > --On 12. desember 2004 21:08 -0500 Scott Bradner > <sob@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > open from last version > > > >> I'd change "BCP publication" to "using its normal > consensus processes" > >> (BCP is no magic term and may not survive the newtrk process) > > > > > > I did not see anyone speak up to support the use of the term "BCP" > > yet the term (the meaning of which may change in the > future) is still > > used > > I support it. > We don't have a better formal term at the moment for > "procedure document > where formal assertion of IETF consensus is required". > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf