This is a good question.
We probably ought to say something.
This may be too strong (but I am not sure.)
At a minimum, I would expect an IAOC member with such a conflict of
interest to recuse themselves from any discussion of the situation.
But, as written, this has odd implications. For
/22/2004, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Joel,
Joel M. Halpern wrote:
I think that there is a different side of this.
Suppose that a budget was worked out (as below), with a plan for a
certain expected coverage from ISOC general funds, meeting fees, and
directed donations.
Lets presume the budget
,
Joel M. Halpern
At 05:23 PM 12/19/2004, Scott Bradner wrote:
jck sed:
Personally, I think I'd be happier with a
professionally-conducted search, but YMMD (and probably does).
I agree (fwiw)
I suggested directly to the IASA TT but did not get a positive respose so
I'll suggest here - I'd sure like
of the Internet. Even the definition of the IETF
in the document is primarily for context rather than as an effort to
actually define the IETF.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
At 07:26 AM 12/8/2004, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
If we want to get WSIS support and subsequent RD public fundings as RFC
3869 calls
in managing the
contract with the infastructure provider.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
At 10:27 AM 11/26/2004, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
In draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-00.txt it states at the end of sect 3.1:
Unless explicitly delegated with the consent of the IAOC, the IAD
will also fill the role of the IETF
job to award that contract.
One would hope that the IESG had review over the person who they had to
work with that closely. But such review is VERY different from getting to
choose the person.
Just my reading of the documents,
Joel M. Halpern
At 04:40 PM 11/26/2004, Sam Hartman wrote:
Carl
explicit if the IASA / IAD are
not doing a good job planning.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
Not on of the document maintainers
but someone trying to understand what it will turn out to mean.
At 07:55 PM 11/17/2004, Fred Baker wrote:
A question for those maintaining the documentÂ…
There is a fair bit of change
or advancing such views.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
At 10:59 AM 10/21/2004 -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I don't think we can require the IESG to negotiate anything. There are
all kinds of legal issues there. To my knowledge, both WGs and the IESG
do think carefully
for this BCP.
2) The schedule calls for seating the IAOC on January 15, and hiring the
IAD by the end of January. Given that the search committee can not be
appointed until the board is seated, it seems that item is either an
impossible schedule or assumes facts not in evidence.
Yours,
Joel M
-
From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 16:35
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Scenario O Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on where from
here
I think that this (scenario 0) is the right approach to
follow. It appears
to me to be the lowest risk
Actually, as far as I can tell the accountability is about the same in both
cases, and in neither case as direct as one would philosophically like
(but probably as direct as one can get in practice.) Similarly, the
change control appears to be equally in the IETF hands.
Yours,
Joel
At 10:31
, as long as you do not request IETF agreement that it
is a good idea we can not stop you. In that regard, the market can still
choose.
It is true that the market attaches value to the IETF standardization. To
that degree, the market has made us judges and asked us to judge.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
to a real
problem seem to be the wrong response.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
At 07:19 AM 11/21/2002 -0800, Charlie Perkins wrote:
Hello folks,
I realzed that my proposal probably wasn't clearly enough stated,
so here goes again.
It is my belief that the IESG has formulated some architectural
principles
.
Then there are the folks who are not participating in a particular activity
at the IETF, but then conclude (after we standardize) that they have a
relevant patent. Should we declare the standard historic?
And then there are the folks who do not even participate in the IETF...
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
At 07:54 AM 5
, multiple protocols for the exact same thing are a bad
idea. Translating that into practice is complicated.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
At 07:34 AM 4/16/2002 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On 15. april 2002 19:55 -0700 todd glassey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Harald - what is the IETF's
to choke.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
At 06:46 PM 11/12/01 -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
| at present our locators are AS numbers.
No, Keith, they are not.
The AS number does not describe a location in any sort of topology.
It is simply a representation of a set of routers with the same
routing
201 - 216 of 216 matches
Mail list logo
