John C Klensin wrote:
...
Again, that justifies keeping the agreement private while you are
negotiating. I don't question that. As I understand BCP 101, you are
even entitled to keep such agreements private from the IESG and IAB
while you are negotiating them, informing those bodies and the community
only on a need to know basis. The question I was asking was whether the
IAOC and/or the IESG expected the IETF community to approve a change in
the BCP without seeing the final trust agreement. If that answer is
"no", then I think we have a problem since this is a new entity that is
not intrinsically bound to the same requirements for public and open
behavior that apply to ISOC and the various IASA elements.
On a point of information, the last call for this draft (-01 version)
ended on September 22, and the -02 version is the update according to
the very few last call comments received. The diffs can be seen at
http://www.ops.ietf.org/Diff-draft-carpenter-bcp101-update-01_txt-draft-carpenter-bcp101-update-02_txt.htm
Now as to John's point, it's one I and the IESG are very sensitive to.
However, Lucy has explained why the IAOC's hands are tied.
I can't tell you what the IESG will decide in tomorrow's
telechat. For the record, I'm recused from the ballot.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf