Re: Transition

[Einar Stefferud <[e-mail]>]

Hi Craig -- You read too much into what I wrote.

I do not say anything about voting, with separate or single votes on
anything.  I only say that in the interests of progress, that we
should be sure to get a significant and relevant number of ISOC
Trustees to attend the IETF Plenary, and to address the issues that
have been raised by the draft proposal.  (Stand and Deliver)

This is a transition issue (per the Subject line).  It will be very
unfortunate to have to revisit this question later, with a consequent
4 month delay in the transition process, and all the painful review
and reassessments that will be involved.  Lets just get to it.

Why are so many people trying to avoid facing the question?

The more the resistance, the more I suspect a serious problem.

I only want for the IETF, if it agrees to the package, to have had a
proper opportunity to understand and discuss the whole package.  Not
just the portion that is is made visible by a partly opened kimono.

Cheers...\Stef

From message <[e-mail]> :
>
>Hi Stef:
>    
>    Regarding ISOC.  It seems to me that the draft makes clear what the
>conditions that IETF believes ISOC should meet to be credible as the home
>for IETF.
>
>    If IETF endorses the POISED report, one can view it as accepting ISOC
>(provide ISOC meets IETF's requirements).  I understand that's not quite
>as explicit as a separate vote yes/no on ISOC chartering, but seems quite
>sufficient to me.
>
>Craig