Hi Susan -
Just so we're clear, that was my going-in assumption and I've kept
that throughout the analysis. Any of the structures I've outlined
can be focused strictly on administrative support (just like
any of the structures could be corrupted to reach beyond that
focus). That's why I suggested that we do this in two steps:
1. agree on the general direction to take
2. task people to write the specific chartering documents and
publish them as a bcp, including a last call
Since the devil is in the details, this lets us focus in
on making sure the details are correct and the community has
seen those details and agreed to them before they become policy.
First step, though, is some feeling from the community on which
path to pursue.
Make sense? (BTW, I'm more than happy to answer questions
about these various mechanisms, processes, functions, and
other buzzwords in the report ... I tried to keep things
clear, but the legal world isn't always perfectly clear. :)
Regards,
Carl
If people want that possibility described, please speak up - Carl has the
pen ready....
Yes that would be helpful.
Well, I don't agree. I think it would defocus the discussion (which
is about putting the IETF's administration onto a business-like
basis). IMHO the only case in which we should discuss the wider
option is if the newtrk WG proposes changes in the standards process
that would make such a thing necessary.
What he said.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf