John C Klensin wrote: ...
Again, that justifies keeping the agreement private while you are negotiating. I don't question that. As I understand BCP 101, you are even entitled to keep such agreements private from the IESG and IAB while you are negotiating them, informing those bodies and the community only on a need to know basis. The question I was asking was whether the IAOC and/or the IESG expected the IETF community to approve a change in the BCP without seeing the final trust agreement. If that answer is "no", then I think we have a problem since this is a new entity that is not intrinsically bound to the same requirements for public and open behavior that apply to ISOC and the various IASA elements.
On a point of information, the last call for this draft (-01 version) ended on September 22, and the -02 version is the update according to the very few last call comments received. The diffs can be seen at http://www.ops.ietf.org/Diff-draft-carpenter-bcp101-update-01_txt-draft-carpenter-bcp101-update-02_txt.htm Now as to John's point, it's one I and the IESG are very sensitive to. However, Lucy has explained why the IAOC's hands are tied. I can't tell you what the IESG will decide in tomorrow's telechat. For the record, I'm recused from the ballot. Brian _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf