On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 01:50:46AM -0700, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> (Note - there is an ITU-T Recommendation that talks about almost exactly
> what is being described. It is documented in RFC 3356, which is shared
> text with ITU-T A-Series Supplement 3. This is, however, not an MOU;
> it's an ITU description of its internal procedures. It's possible that
> ISO and ITU got mixed up somewhere along the line.)
Err, no, I wouldn't call RFC 3356 a Memo of Understanding. (Remember,
you're answering a question that was posed by someone who tends to be
extremely legalistic and who likes to issue legal advice without being
a lawyer. So, you have to be very careful about your terms.)
In general, a Memorandum of Understanding is generally understood to
be documenting points that were made after some negotiation which
generally has the force of a contract. It is sometimes thought of a
as a simple contract, and the term probably started as a way of
evading legal review by a company's legal department by not calling
itself a contract, but just "a memo of understanding" between to
company's representatives. But over time it has acquired the
connotation of something fairly formal and generally legally binding.
For example of this, take a look at RFC 2860, "Memorandum of
Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the Internet Assigned
Numbers Authority", which was written in the style of a contract and
signed by Fred Baker (IETF chair), Brian Carpenter (IAB chair), and
Mike Roberts (President, ICANN) as such.
In contrast, RFC 3356 is not legally binding, and in fact describes
itself as a document providing "guidance to aid in the understanding"
--- where understanding is generally of mapping the meaning of words
and organizational structures between the two organizations' cultures
("you say lorry, we say truck"), and suggestions about how to work
together ("mailing Word documents to an IETF list is discouraged").
However, it is NOT a legal document that is formally agreed-to by both
sides, but rather an explication of each party's existing policies and
procedures so the two organizations might be able to work together
effectively.
If you look at the tenor of RFC 3356 and RFC 2860, you will hopefully
see there is a massive difference between the intent and style of thw
two documents, and in fact RFC 3356 says nowhere that it is a MOU.
- Ted
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf