Joel... just to be clear...
I suspect that in the below you meant
IASA (IETF Administrative Support Activity)
which is defined in Scenario O
and not
IASF (IETF Administartive Support Foundation)
which is defined in Scenario C
Bert
-----Original Message-----
From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:joel(_at_)stevecrocker(_dot_)com]
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 16:35
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
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 path consistent with the needs
that have been
identified.
Two minor comments:
1) The references to "the IASF bank account" should probably be relaxed to
"IASF fund accounts" or "IASF accounts". As written, it presumes that
there is exactly one bank account, and that separation of funds is by bank
control. While the later is probably a good idea, I don't think this BCP
is the place to call that out. And the exact number of bank accounts used
by IASF (0, 1, 5, or ...) is not a concern 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. Halpern
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf