Inline
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]On Behalf Of
John C Klensin
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 18:41
To: Scott Bradner; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Issue #727: Section 2.2, 4, & 7 - Miscellaneous & editorial
--On Sunday, 02 January, 2005 08:19 -0500 Scott Bradner
<sob(_at_)harvard(_dot_)edu> wrote:
brian asks
Perhaps we do indeed need to explicitly limit the
IAOC Chair to chairing the IAOC. But we almost do - the
following paragraph says:
The chair of the IAOC shall have the authority to manage
the activities and meetings of the IAOC. The IAOC Chair
has no formal duty to represent the IAOC, except as
directed by IAOC consensus.
Isn't this enough?
maybe the 2nd sentence change to
The IAOC Chair does not represent the IAOC (unless directed
to do so by IAOC consensus) and does not represent the IETF.
"no formal duty" leaves the IAOC chair to do so anyway and it
would be good, in the same place, to say that the IAOC chair
does not represent the IETF
Yes. "no formal duty" implies that all sorts of representations
can be made and done, it just does not _require_ the Chair to do
it. As Margaret points out, large dragons have walked through
smaller loopholes in the IETF. Scott's proposed sentence is
_much_ better.
So why not:
The IAOC Chair does not represent the IAOC (unless directed
to do so by IAOC consensus) and does not represent the IETF.
The IAOX chair also does not erpresent:
- The IESG
- The IAB
- The IPCDN WG
- The IRTF
- The UN
- The ITU
- The ITU-T SG4
etc etc tec
Of course I am kidding... but I think the current text is fine.
(my personal opinion of course).
Bert
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf