Subject: Discussion: #822 legal review 3: Legal advice

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 10:22:59 +0100

The discussion of legal advice (Jorge's third point) seems to have revealed 
that there are two issues here:

- Should legal advice be sought? That's almost too obvious to state, but 
might be worth stating anyway...... I suggest that we add to paragraph 4 of 
section 3.1, "IAD responsibilities". This used to be:

   The IAD negotiates service contracts, with input, as appropriate,
   from other bodies, and with review, as appropriate, by the IAOC.  The
   IAOC should establish guidelines for what level of review is expected
   based on contract type, size, cost, or duration.  ISOC executes
   contracts on behalf of the IASA, after whatever review ISOC requires
   to ensure that the contracts meet ISOC's legal and financial
   requirements.

This could be changed to read:

   The IAD negotiates service contracts, with input, as appropriate,
   from other bodies, including legal advice, and with review, as
   appropriate, by the IAOC.  The
   IAOC should establish guidelines for what level of review is expected
   based on contract type, size, cost, or duration.  ISOC executes
   contracts on behalf of the IASA, after whatever review ISOC requires
   to ensure that the contracts meet ISOC's legal and financial
   requirements.

The other point raised is whether the legal advice for IASA needs to be 
independent from ISOC's legal advice. Consideration so far seems to be that 
"sometimes this would be good, sometimes this would be indifferent or extra 
overhead - hard to codify in this BCP".

Should we leave that as "no change proposed"?

                  Harald

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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:33:25 +0100

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> The discussion of legal advice (Jorge's third point) seems to have 
> revealed that there are two issues here:
> 
> might be worth stating anyway...... I suggest that we add to paragraph 4 
> of section 3.1, "IAD responsibilities". This used to be:
> 
> independent from ISOC's legal advice. Consideration so far seems to be 
> that "sometimes this would be good, sometimes this would be indifferent 
> or extra overhead - hard to codify in this BCP".
> 

Works for me
     Brian