IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Iasa20] Memo exploring options for IASA 2.0 models

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Fri, 16 February 2018 18:56 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C59451242EA for <iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 10:56:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=acgd6uMJ; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=cxL1jaSF
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GznieyBlxCqQ for <iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 10:56:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.yitter.info (mx4.yitter.info [159.203.56.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 423231200C1 for <iasa20@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 10:56:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF5B0BD351 for <iasa20@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 18:55:53 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1518807353; bh=u+evE9gH9LJWXA0be1VdyQfd33QkqhwFIzVg0mkEI40=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=acgd6uMJ+zE+R6VIrTLlgAj9iRIcfzaWCFGvEXpRKLsI4GAPr0DSrBWHOJjWK7bE0 oTKzWBp5AdwF/tS6bfLkg3XaUOKDbiVuPs8MJBp1NOtHO1UoOEFuTfBGmLMZv1t39C jdzHQdjkD7xSve2L8HGwQtAHghMPx9ac0HYugpc0=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx4.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FinOOpbD2gd6 for <iasa20@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 18:55:52 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 13:55:51 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1518807352; bh=u+evE9gH9LJWXA0be1VdyQfd33QkqhwFIzVg0mkEI40=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=cxL1jaSFfNqn0vx0EZXJQzHt0VxHrFi0UYMK1SWseT5EwXHJL9RVtlcQgE630/8z5 ZffioMZB6Sq6cQb8+DGxez/sk9WviUjX4+KcYQ7Trhv2ralUYI1kWtIs57jrJ4jNbg uWrA0pHqOMZ2rNrYQh04CBSo3SW2DBVXjZytl8CU=
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: iasa20@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20180216185551.cgigor7up7uowmr6@mx4.yitter.info>
References: <4483006c-1652-7340-19f8-8d0579af8213@cdt.org> <20182.1518727709@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <C77B41DA-268D-4F0E-8AC8-F2E292E38B14@cooperw.in> <9631.1518800971@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <be961111-9bed-086e-a0ab-b220125a438d@cs.auckland.ac.nz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <be961111-9bed-086e-a0ab-b220125a438d@cs.auckland.ac.nz>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iasa20/6_xav-d0DrbQ1nUkpXtnsCRfpxE>
Subject: Re: [Iasa20] Memo exploring options for IASA 2.0 models
X-BeenThere: iasa20@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions relating to reorganising the IETF administrative structures in the so called “IASA 2.0” project. <iasa20.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/iasa20>, <mailto:iasa20-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/iasa20/>
List-Post: <mailto:iasa20@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iasa20-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20>, <mailto:iasa20-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 18:56:26 -0000

Hi,

On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 07:50:40AM +1300, Brian Carpenter wrote:
> On 17/02/2018 06:09, Michael Richardson wrote:
> ...
> > 1. I think that we want our own bank account.
> 
> I have seen no consenus call to that effect.

The IETF already has its own bank account, so I think you'd need a
consensus call to undo that.  
 
> Why? When did the IETF ever suffer as a result of its contracts being
> signed by ISOC?

I believe some people have made the point about this repeatedly: it's
not the contracts as such, but the consequences of that contracting
relationshop, that is the problem.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email