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

Yes, in minor comment 1 I meant the IASA bank account(s) or fund 
account(s), not the IASF accounts.  (I believe that the scenario C document 
avoid this particular pitfall, since it did not need to talk about 
segregation of funds.)

Sorry to mix names.

Yours,
Joel

At 05:12 PM 9/23/2004 +0200, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>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