On Wednesday, January 19, 2005 10:52:20 -0800 Fred Baker <fred@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If the BCP is the IETF's request to ISOC, then the agreement between IETF and ISOC is a different document, and the ISOC Board should pass a resolution supporting *that* document. If the BCP is the agreement between ISOC and IETF, and IETF expects ISOC to pass a resolution supporting it, then what we are discussing here is what ISOC and IETF will actually do, not what one side is requesting of the other.
I _think_ the intent is that the published BCP will represent a formal agreement between ISOC and the IETF, but of course the work-in-progress internet-draft does not. Given this, I think it's appropriate any time we add to text for people comment on "what we're asking ISOC to do". By proposing adding a requirement to a document we expect will represent agreement between ISOC and the IETF, we _are_ asking ISOC to do something.
Hopefully by the time the IESG sends the document to the ISOC board, we have indeed progressed from "the IETF is asking" to "ISOC and the IETF agree", and the vote of the ISOC board is just a formality. IMHO, if this is not the case, we've screwed up.
What ISOC will actually do is ensure that it has the ability to perform all of its functions when the chips are down. One of those functions is the IASA.
How would you like to document that?
I think a slight variation on Harald's proposal should suffice:
The IASA expects ISOC to build and provide that operational reserve,
through whatever mechanisms ISOC deems appropriate.
Harald stopped after "reserve"; I think the next clause is important to make it clear that we don't expect ISOC to keep a special cash pool just for IASA.
By the way, before we are done, I believe that the IETF and ISOC should update our MOU. The current MOU is RFC 2031, and is badly out of date even with respect to current commitments ISOC has made to the IETF. The updated MOU should, I believe, not only describe the expectations that IETF has of ISOC, but the expectations that ISOC has of the IETF, in terms of supporting its educational and public policy activities through counsel, position papers like RFC 1984, and personnel.
This sounds like a very good idea.
-- Jeffrey T. Hutzelman (N3NHS) <jhutz+@xxxxxxx> Sr. Research Systems Programmer School of Computer Science - Research Computing Facility Carnegie Mellon University - Pittsburgh, PA
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf