With Kind regards,
Wen Wu
Technology Center, ZTE Corporation
5/F., A Wing ,ZTE Plaza,Keji Road South
Hi-Tech Industrial Park,Shenzhen,P.R.China
Zip code:518057
Tel:+86 755 26771514 (local: 1514)
Fax:+86 755 26770324 (local: 0324)
Mobile:1380
--On Wednesday, 19 January, 2005 14:24 +0100 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Version -04 says the following about firing IAOC members:
>
>IAOC members are subject to recall in the event that an
> IAOC member
>abrogates his or her duties or acts against the best
> in
On Thursday, January 20, 2005 15:07:27 -0500 John C Klensin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--On Wednesday, 19 January, 2005 23:16 -0500 Jeffrey Hutzelman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I _think_ the intent is that the published BCP will represent
a formal agreement between ISOC and the IETF, but of cour
--On Wednesday, 19 January, 2005 23:16 -0500 Jeffrey Hutzelman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 appr
Hi -
I agree with Tom that this is kind of confused, and I think there is some
potential fast and loose use of the language of accountancy. :))
I think the vague term "accounts" is just fine for the purpose we are
engaged in. I think all we're trying to say is that the ietf community
would like
> "Brian" == Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Brian> I think that is not really a concern. If someone has a
Brian> grievance that is serious enough for them to hire a lawyer
Brian> to make a complaint, no words in an RFC will stop them. But
Brian> the right words i
--On torsdag, januar 20, 2005 20:13:21 +0200 John Loughney
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Steve's email caused me to think, but first let me say that this should
not be in the BCP. Is it a correct assumption to think that the IASA
will give an update at every IETF plenary, along the lines of IANA a
Steve's email caused me to think, but first let me say that this should not be
in the BCP. Is it a correct assumption to think that the IASA will give an
update at every IETF plenary, along the lines of IANA and the RFC Editor? I
would hope so.
John L.
-- original message --
Subject:R
Inline,
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 3:24 PM
Subject: Resolution? #787 terminology - in particular "ISOC Standards
Pillar"
> In #787, Margaret raised a couple of terminology questions related to
t
This is a follow up to Harald's message of Jan 10.
(http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg33578.html)
Section 7 of the -04 version of the Structure of the IETF Administrative
Support Activity (IASA) Internet-Draft mentions that any (positive) balance
in the IASA accounts (among
Again. I agree with Sam and John here. Getting out of the over specification
here is important. The IASA will need to write-up some rules, but I think this
BCP is the wrong place, having some operational experience is important.
John L.
-- original message --
Subject:Re: Last Call Com
Hi.
Scott Brim is doing the main (gen-art) review of this document but I
started so here is my twopennorth...
I have come to this with relatively fresh eyes since I have stayed out of
the governance discussions since my work on the problem WG a while back and
have only just started following th
At 06:25 AM 1/20/2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On torsdag, januar 20, 2005
00:00:36 -0500 Michael StJohns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
If you (general plural) really
feel this section needs to stand I think
you need to address at least two issues and narrow them
substantially:
who has sta
Hi,
In general I am happy with this formulation. Some comments below.
On 19 jan 2005, at 09.38, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
--
3.5 Decision review
In the case where someone believes that a decision of the IAD or the
IAOC
either need an extra phras
> 3.5 Decision review
>
> In the case where someone questions a decision of the IAD or the
> IAOC, he or she may ask for a formal review of the decision.
>
> The request for review is addressed to the person or body that made
> the decision. It is up to that body to decide to make a response,
> and
It is my opinion that an organization independent of any other
ineterests should be placed in charge of the root servers. This way,
no one organization can claim ownership of the DNS roots.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailm
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Hmm. I think this bothers me a lot unless
a) unsuccessful bidders and their agents
and
b) unsuccessful job candidates
are explicitly excluded. Otherwise, every time
the IASA awards a contract or hires somebody, they are
exposed to public attack by the unsuccessful.
In gen
Hmm, it’s my upgraded-Windows commands.
Franck also added:
> I take also the opportunity to add something else
on another subject:
> ICANN, IETF, APNIC and other meetings are really
easy to attend, they
> are video casted, audio casted and even text
casted in chat/forum like
> chann
I was groggier than I thought. Wasted one of my three
allowed postings when my finger sent off my earlier post without permission.
Franck also added:
> I take also the opportunity to add something else
on another subject:
> ICANN, IETF, APNIC and other meetings are really
easy to atte
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of Franck Martin
> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 10:58 AM
> To: xie wei; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [IGOVAP]Re:another discussion about
management of root server
>
>
--On torsdag, januar 20, 2005 00:00:36 -0500 Michael StJohns
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If you (general plural) really feel this section needs to stand I think
you need to address at least two issues and narrow them substantially:
who has standing to ask for a formal review? and on what specific
Fred,
we went into the topic of whether a separate MoU was required at the
beginning of December (thread with subject "Adminrest: IASA BCP:
Separability", subthread started by brian Carpenter on December 2), and
concluded that no other document should be necessary.
A few cycles ago, while we we
Michael StJohns wrote:
At a minimum, I'd explicitly prohibit review of the IADs actions
> by any body except the IAOC - direct the review to the IAOC only.
I think this is correct, managerially. That way the IAD knows who
his or her boss is, and that is important. But there is nothing
in draft-iet
Scott Bradner wrote:
Harald asks:
2.5 Effective Date for Commencement of IASA
The procedures in this document shall become operational
after this document has been approved by the process defined in
BCP 9 [RFC2026] , including its acc
Scott Bradner wrote:
Harald asks if "no change" on "firing the whole group" is OK
its ok by me
me too.
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I full agree with Harald on this
Brian
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
In #787, Margaret raised a couple of terminology questions related to
the terms:
- IASA Accounts
- IETF accounts
- ISOC Standards pillar
In discussion, it seems clear that "IETF accounts" is a mistake, and
should be change
Scott Bradner wrote:
harald suggets
The IAOC attempts to reach consensus on all decisions.
If the IAOC cannot achieve a consensus decision, then
the IAOC may decide by voting.
looks good to me
Agreed
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
htt
Ted Hardie wrote:
At 4:48 PM +0100 1/19/05, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
Harald responds to Lynn
> Lynn,
I actually disagree here.
The mind-picture I think we want to establish through using
"accounts" is
"rows of numbers that can be added up to get totals" - we want to
know what
it's costing,
28 matches
Mail list logo
