on re-reading this, I think John and I are saying the same thing. I missed
that in my earlier read. Serves me for replying too early in the morning :-(
--On torsdag, januar 27, 2005 09:07:11 +0100 Harald Tveit Alvestrand
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John,
just one comment:
--On 26. januar 2005
--On Thursday, 27 January, 2005 09:07 +0100 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John,
just one comment:
--On 26. januar 2005 10:55 -0500 John C Klensin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, if the terms and conditions of the current
relationship with Foretec were acceptable
--On Thursday, 27 January, 2005 10:51 +0100 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
on re-reading this, I think John and I are saying the same
thing. I missed that in my earlier read. Serves me for
replying too early in the morning :-(
Even earlier in the morning here :-(
But, yes,
--On 27. januar 2005 04:57 -0500 John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But this particular reorg process has been characterized by a
crisis mentality and a sense of got to get it done quickly even
if it means pushing our procedural boundaries really hard
urgency. That would probably not have
Bob,
thank you for your note!
Some comments to some particular points in your message:
It was recently pointed out that issues concerning confidentiality of
information may not have been adequately addressed; patent submissions
may also place additional constraints and restrictions on what
John,
forgive me for pulling a reset here - but I've become sufficiently lost in
the various threads on the progress report heading that I'm no longer
certain which questions you've raised, which have been answered, which have
been overtaken by events, and which are no longer relevant. So let
Folks,
the latest draft - draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-05 - was published yesterday.
The editors believe that we now have text known to be acceptable to the
IETF consensus on all issues raised except the issue of appeals, where we
are still searching for a proper understanding and consensus.
I would
Hi Eric,
At 5:40 PM -0800 1/26/05, Eric Rescorla wrote:
With that in mind, I would like to suggest the following principles:
1. The IETF community should have input on the internal rules
set by the IASA and the IASA should be required to respond
to comments by the community on said rules.
2.
I am actually not strongly in favor of principle (6) myself. I
think that the IAB, IESG and ISOC BoT could be trusted to decide
whether overturning a particular (non-binding) decision is
appropriate in a particular situation. But, others seemed to feel
strongly that allowing anyone else to
Margaret Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 5:40 PM -0800 1/26/05, Eric Rescorla wrote:
With that in mind, I would like to suggest the following principles:
1. The IETF community should have input on the internal rules
set by the IASA and the IASA should be required to respond
to
No show stoppers.
Personally, I also think the text in 3.5 and 3.6 provides enough
checks and balances to get IASA started, and we should defer the
review/appeal debate until later. I consider it more urgent to have
the BCP approved as a stake in the ground than to make it perfect.
Brian
Harald
Hi Eric,
The problem is that best interests of the IETF is a completely
amorophous standard (In my view, chocolate helps people think
better so we need chocolate chip cookies in order to produce
better standards), so I don't seee how this rules out any appeals
at all.
This is a good point, and I
This didn't seem to make it
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 15:51:43 -0500 (EST)
From: Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Contreras, Jorge [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Legal review results 1:
I like this formulation.
A couple of suggested tweaks, inline:
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Remove the current sections 3.5 and 3.6 and replace them with a new
section 3.5:
3.5 Review and Appeal of IAD and IAOC Decision
The IAOC is directly accountable to the IETF community for the
not a showstopper but it woudl eb good to be clear
the text curently says:
Subject to paragraph 2 of Section 4.1, appointed members of the IAOC
serve two year terms. IAOC terms normally end at the first IETF
meeting of a year, just as as IAB and IESG terms do.
I suggest changing this
Hi Leslie,
I like this formulation.
A couple of suggested tweaks, inline:
...and I like your tweaks :-).
They make the text much clearer. Thanks.
Margaret
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I am happy with both as well.
thanks
a.
On 27 jan 2005, at 20.30, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Hi Leslie,
I like this formulation.
A couple of suggested tweaks, inline:
...and I like your tweaks :-).
They make the text much clearer. Thanks.
Margaret
___
I think we are very close here. I can live with Margaret's text with
Leslie's proposed changes. It's actually very close to something I
would be happy with.
I've been rethinking my position since yesterday. I realized that
most of what I want does not require formalism or requires very little
--At 11:37 AM -0500 1/26/05, John C Klensin wrote:
Of course, if Neustar agrees to whatever provisions are in the
BCP, and whatever details about those provisions that the IAOC
specifies, and is able to do so --which Harald's note indicates
they are prepared to do-- then this should not be an
bb
--On Thursday, January 27, 2005 1:23 PM +0100 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John,
forgive me for pulling a reset here - but I've become
sufficiently lost in the various threads on the progress
report heading that I'm no longer certain which questions
you've raised, which have
20 matches
Mail list logo
