Subject: RE: On the difference between scenarios A and B in Carl's report

From: "Thomas Gal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 17:25:22 -0700

Yes. Seems odd to have procedure for making procedures and everything else
but nothing formal about an umbrella organization that sits between us and
the real world. Seems counter to the well documented openess that seems to
be a core tenent of everything else that goes on.

-T 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Paul
Hoffman / VPNC
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 1:29 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: On the difference between scenarios A and B in Carl's report

At 7:57 PM +0200 9/6/04, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>It seems to me that we are rapidly converging on one point of total 
>IETF consensus:
>
>  Putting the IETF administrative function under ISOC requires a 
> documented  IETF-ISOC agreement (call it an MoU, a contract or 
> something else - it IS  a document, it IS an agreement and it DOES have
two parties).
>Agreed?

Agreed.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

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

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