Subject: Re: Suggest no change: #739 Assuring ISOC commitment to AdminRest

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:40:29 -0500 (EST)

note that in the resolutions that accepted the IETF process BCPs 
(2026 for example) also had text that said that the ISOC aggreed to
undertake the role described in the document for the ISOC

i.e. I would expect that both would be in a single motion

Scott

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "John Loughney" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:24:28 +0200

I agree with Brian & John K.

John L.

-- original message --
Subject:	Re: Suggest no change: #739 Assuring ISOC commitment to AdminRest
From:	"Brian E Carpenter" <[email-masked]>
Date:		01/14/2005 11:49 am

John C Klensin wrote:
> Pete,
> 
> I still think this is misdirected energy.
> 
> But, in the interest of finding a reasonable compromise and
> moving on, let me make a suggestion:
> 
> 	(1) We let the current text and resolution style stand,
> 	so that bylaw changes don't become a gating factor [note
> 	1 below].
> 	
> 	(2) We ask the current, sympathetic, helpful,
> 	supportive, ISOC Board to consider a bylaws modification
> 	that does not single out the IETF Administrative Entity...

(details deleted)

I think this is the only realistic approach. Pete asked why it takes
months to get the by-laws amended. Well, it's because a corporation
takes its by-laws seriously, will need to debate the text, get
legal review, and finally take a formal vote. Corporation law requires
that formal vote to be face to face or conference call, not email.
It just takes time, whereas I would hope that a resolution endorsing
the BCP would take a couple of weeks. [Truth in advertising: the email
vote on a resolution has to be confirmed face to face, but that is
truly a formality.]

(Side note - I wouldn't go near the Articles of Incorporation. If they
get modified, it's likely to trigger a review of ISOC's non-profit
tax status and that is nuisance for no reason.)

     Brian