On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 06:23:13AM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Wouildn't be more prudent to keep the texct as iot was and when ever ,we refer to coorinationin the text we complemented it b" and support ,where applicable and required" The rest unchanged$
If the plan is to "keep the text as it was," that would mean making no changes whatsoever to the mission statement and also not changing its effective role, right? That is, the mission text could not change compared to what is in the bylaws today, it could not become a fundamental bylaw, and it could not become the basic ground on which all appeal reasoning is built. Is that what you propose? If so, then (not having polled the IAB so speaking just for myself) I suspect the approach might be something I could live with. We'd revert to the situation we've had for many years: the mission statement is fancifully over-broad, but because it's only a statement of corporate aspiration it's merely annoying rather than a threat to the IETF. At the same time, this approach seems to be a pretty big departure from what's been in the CCWG drafts so far, which have both founded the IRP on the mission. So it would solve this mission-text problem by creating at least as large a problem elsewhere in the CCWG's work. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com