>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 18:09:12 -0400 (EDT)
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission from ["Steven M. Bellovin"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>
>>From research.att.com!smb Wed Apr 7 18:09:11 1999
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Received: from mail-blue.research.att.com([135.207.30.102]) (3309 bytes) by
>ns1.vrx.net
> via sendmail with P:smtp/D:aliases/T:pipe
> (sender: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
> id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 18:09:10 -0400 (EDT)
> (Smail-3.2.0.100 1997-Dec-8 #2 built 1997-Dec-18)
>Received: from bigmail.research.att.com (bigmail.research.att.com [135.207.30.101])
> by mail-blue.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
> id 1DBCE4CE14; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 18:06:08 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from SIGABA.research.att.com (sigaba.research.att.com [135.207.23.169])
> by bigmail.research.att.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA03599;
> Wed, 7 Apr 1999 18:06:07 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: by SIGABA.research.att.com (Postfix, from userid 54047)
> id DE9DA41F16; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 18:06:06 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from roc (localhost [127.0.0.1])
> by SIGABA.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
> id CF9CF400B4; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 18:06:01 -0400 (EDT)
>X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98
>To: Jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Poisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> IFWP Discussion List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: RFC 2282 nit
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 18:06:01 -0400
>From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jeff Williams writes:
>> All,
>>
>> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>
>> > Poisson,
>> >
>> > There was only one suggested change to this, which I have added
>> > below. Do we want to re-issue 2282, or merely keep this on hold
>> > until there is another reason to re-issue it?
>> >
>> > Section 4 of RFC 2282 states among other things
>> >
>> > > > (9) Nominating committee members must not be nominees.
>> > > >
>> > > > To be a nominee is to enter the process of being selected as a
>> > > > candidate and confirmed. Nominating committee members are not
>> > > > eligible to be considered for filling any open position.
>> >
>> > I would like to suggest adding a sentence to this clause as follows:
>> >
>> > This ineligibility starts from the moment that the
>> > membership of the nominating committee is announced,
>> > and continues until the membership of the next nominating
>> > committee is announced, even for a member who resigns
>> > from the committee.
>>
>> I would recommend the following modification:
>>
>> That no member of the nominating committee may be a nominee.
>> That the nominating committee must be elected by majority vote of
>> the general assembly through online or attendance voting . That any
>> and all nominee's must be approved by the General assembly by
>> majority vote through online or attendance vote.
>> That any and all stakeholders are to be considered members or are
>> eligible for membership of the PSO in accordance with the requirements
>> of the white paper...
>
>You've confused two threads. Brian's note is about the nominating committee
>that selects the IAB and IESG; it is not related to the PSO or ICANN.
>It's not preposterous to suggest that the IETF organize itself differently,
>but that would require a very long process and a lot of discussion, and
>would still be unrelated to ICANN and the PSO.
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Those who give up a little freedom for a little security
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one"
--Thomas Jefferson
