Re: Scenario O Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on where from here

Margaret Wasserman <> Thu, 23 September 2004 16:02 UTC

Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA25677; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 12:02:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CAWAB-0002pA-3F; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 12:09:44 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CAVnc-0002wM-Fe; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 11:46:24 -0400
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CAVi8-0001ct-MJ for; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 11:40:46 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA23989 for <>; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 11:40:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CAVox-0002Kb-4M for; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 11:47:47 -0400
Received: from [] (account margaret HELO []) by (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 161826; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 11:36:09 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06020473bd789ba791e1@[]>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 11:40:15 -0400
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <>,
From: Margaret Wasserman <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7baded97d9887f7a0c7e8a33c2e3ea1b
Subject: Re: Scenario O Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on where from here
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: cab78e1e39c4b328567edb48482b6a69

Hi Joel,

At 10:35 AM -0400 9/23/04, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>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.

Yes.  Someone else also pointed this out.  If we go forward with 
Scenario O, the BCP should probably just say that the money will be 
kept in separate account(s) and let the business management folks 
determine the right form and structure for those accounts.

>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.

Actually, the schedule calls for the interim IAOC to be seated on 
15-Nov and for that group to begin the recruitment process.  The 
actual hiring wouldn't occur until after the BCP is approved by the 
IESG and ISOC (Jan 17th).  So, this is a ~2-month recruitment 
process. which is still aggressive but perhaps not impossible.

There are some compromises involved for quick start-up (like having 
the nomcom appointed members join later), but we've tried to be 
careful to make any major decisions (appointments, hiring, contracts) 
follow the appropriate levels of community approval and to have all 
of the major decisions made by people who will be responsible for the 
long-term consequences (good or bad) of those decisions.  I'd be very 
interested to know if folks think that we've gotten this wrong -- 
either the principles/priorities, or the details of schedule we've 
put forward...


Ietf mailing list