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

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@stevecrocker.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 16:35
> To: ietf@ietf.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@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf