Subject: Re: Version -06 of the IASA BCP - is this a workable version?

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 00:06:17 +0100

At 09:57 02/02/2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>Version -06 of draft-ietf-iasa-bcp is now available in the archives.
>
>At this time, I'd like to ask:
>Does this document, taken as a whole, and seen from the IETF community, 
>represent an acceptable basis for starting the IASA?

For those who want to click on an URL to find this draft, here it is for 
your convenience:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-06.txt

>I am no longer asking whether people like all the details. We can make 
>adjustments to that forever, but we have to stop some time.
>I'm asking whether this document is now "good enough".

If the question is only that, answer is "no".

Reason why, is the draft says that there is no open issue. It also 
says:"The IETF is a consensus-based group, and authority to act on 
behalf   of the community requires a high degree of consensus and the 
continued consent of the community.  After a careful process of 
deliberation, a broad-based community consensus emerged to house the IETF 
Administrative Support Activity (IASA) within the Internet Society.This 
document reflects that consensus."

Yet the request that the following text is added in Part 4 has been 
objected by you and discussed with others, on the list and off list. The 
carefull  process of deliberation is not completed, and has not lead to a 
consensus.

This text is: "International: ISOC shall work with its national Chapters, 
the IAD and IAOC to document how the IETF meetings and the Internet 
standard process could benefit from the local presence, market knowledge 
and languages familiarity of these Chapters."

jfc

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

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 21:05:47 -0500

Mr. Morfin,
    The IETF works by rough consensus.  The fact that you want specific 
text added while there has not been significant support (in fact to my eye 
there has been no support) does not indicate the absence of rough 
consensus.  I agree with the opinions expressed that the text you want does 
not belong in this document at all.

    With regard to Harald's original question, I believe this document is 
"good enough".  We can refine it from now till doomsday.

     Yours,
     Joel M. Halpern

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 09:10:04 +0100

> and languages familiarity of these Chapters."

Consensus does not mean unanimity. I have not seen anyone else speak out to 
support your proposed addition, and have heard people speaking against it.
Sometimes you're the "rough" in "rough consensus".

                   Harald