Harald, et al,
It looks like the BCP process is moving along nicely. Meanwhile, within ISOC, we're studying the draft and focusing on how best to provide the right procedures and support for the IETF. Some ISOC folks have offered up suggestions already. We will try to provide a more comprehensive set of comments shortly.
In broad terms, the IETF runs the standards process and completely controls its procedures. The administrative processes should be supportive of the volunteers in the IETF to help make the IETF efficient, effective and fulfilling. ISOC's primary responsibility in this area is to raise the funds and provide the business support. ISOC has been funding the IETF and providing business support for many years, so the current restructuring of the administrative processes is, from our perspective, an evolution of the existing relationship as opposed to the creation of a wholly new relation.
Steve
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
I think the following relations hold:
- Three of the "financial" tickets are covered by the text changes proposed in #778 (the "Finances" message I sent a few days ago). They are:
- #740: Reserves
- #748: Quarterly deposits
- #772: term "Accruied funds"
In addition:
- #770 (Compensation for IAOC members) has consensus on text
- #771 (Powers of IAOC chair) has consensus on text
- #778 ("Finances") has consensus on the text, as modified by #779
- #779 (IAOC role in separation ISOC/IETF) has consensus on text
- #752 ("ISOC bolt blowing") has not made the case for change, and can be closed with no change to text.
Unless someone insists, I won't recapitulate those.
OK?
Harald
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf