Re: [Rfced-future] approval path for our work

for what its worth - the "nod" from the ISOC board relative to IETF processes was
that the ISOC board voted to "accept" IETF  processes in order for the ISOC to be able to buy 
insurance to cover IETF decisions (IAB, IESG, WG chairs etc) 

if the insurance is now bought by the LLC then maybe the ISOC board no longer needs to nod

Scott

> On Sep 9, 2021, at 3:20 AM, Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Why the nod from the Internet Society Board?  They're not once mentioned
> in the draft.
> 
> Maybe not,  but they used to pay for the series directly, hold the copyrights and the contract. They still supply the money. So it would be a courtesy at the very least.
> 
> Regards,
>     Brian Carpenter
>     (via tiny screen & keyboard)
> 
> On Thu, 9 Sep 2021, 18:55 Eliot Lear, <lear@lear.ch> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 09.09.21 00:49, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >
> > If so, since it's a potential BCP, do I need to take it to gendisptach?
> > It expired a while ago:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-carpenter-rfced-iab-charter
> > I have an editorial update ready to go.
> 
> 
> I would think that the right approach.  If it gets hung up there, then 
> we can reconsider our options.
> 
> 
> >   
> >> We also agreed that whatever the approval path, we should circulate our
> >> LC far and wide so that everyone has an opportunity to comment.
> > Clearly. I feel that given what's *currently* in RFC 2850 and that the
> > IAB chartered this activity, we do need formal approval from the IAB
> > and a nod from both the Internet Society Board and the IESG.
> 
> Why the nod from the Internet Society Board?  They're not once mentioned 
> in the draft.
> 
> Eliot
> 
> 
> -- 
> Rfced-future mailing list
> Rfced-future@iab.org
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future