I agree with Brian & John K.
John L.
-- original message --
Subject: Re: Suggest no change: #739 Assuring ISOC commitment to AdminRest
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 01/14/2005 11:49 am
John C Klensin wrote:
> Pete,
>
> I still think this is misdirected energy.
>
> But, in the interest of finding a reasonable compromise and
> moving on, let me make a suggestion:
>
> (1) We let the current text and resolution style stand,
> so that bylaw changes don't become a gating factor [note
> 1 below].
>
> (2) We ask the current, sympathetic, helpful,
> supportive, ISOC Board to consider a bylaws modification
> that does not single out the IETF Administrative Entity...
(details deleted)
I think this is the only realistic approach. Pete asked why it takes
months to get the by-laws amended. Well, it's because a corporation
takes its by-laws seriously, will need to debate the text, get
legal review, and finally take a formal vote. Corporation law requires
that formal vote to be face to face or conference call, not email.
It just takes time, whereas I would hope that a resolution endorsing
the BCP would take a couple of weeks. [Truth in advertising: the email
vote on a resolution has to be confirmed face to face, but that is
truly a formality.]
(Side note - I wouldn't go near the Articles of Incorporation. If they
get modified, it's likely to trigger a review of ISOC's non-profit
tax status and that is nuisance for no reason.)
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf