--On onsdag, januar 26, 2005 09:21:34 -0500 Scott Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Harald sez: - We will *share* with the community our opinion that this effort could help achieve a transition with less conflict and uncertainty than going straight from a CNRI-provided secretariat to an open RFP process would.
is there any particular consensus determination mechanism envisioned?
For forming an opinion and sharing it with the community, the transition team has so far operated by consensus :-)
i.e., how will who (IASA, IAD, IESG, IAB, all of the above) figure out of the IETF community thinks that its a good idea for the IETF to agree to N years (where N seems to be an unknown value) of NeuStar before issuing an RFP?
My opinion: First - get the facts out where people can see them. Second - ask. We're still on the first item.
FWIW, the two values of N I have heard bandied about are "1" and "2" - and that includes the year 2005. I wouldn't ask ANYONE to state a firm opinion without knowing that number.
(note: talking about numbers in contracts here, not "what might possibly happen at the end of the period".)
Scott
(ps - my personal feeling is that the general idea is a good one but, like John, I think there are a lot of questions that need to be answered before IETF community should be asked if it supports the "arrangement" so that NeuStar can find out, as they say they want to know, if the IETF community supports their initiative)
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf