►
From YouTube: IETF102-IASA2-20180717-0930
Description
IASA2 meeting session at IETF102
2018/07/17 0930
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/102/proceedings/
A
B
B
A
What's
next,
we
have
a
big
chunk
of
time
for
a
they.
The
key
discussion
that
we
need
to
have
here,
which
is
about
the
structure
draft
and
really
a
few
key
open
items
there,
and
then
this
is
going
to
provide
us
an
update
on
the
operating
agreement
and
related
items
that
recently
was
on
the
mailing
list.
So
that
may
be
an
interesting
discussion
as
well
and
then
in
Ted.
A
Can
we
talk
about
ITF
trust,
because
those
documents
must
be
updated
as
a
result
of
the
elimination
in
the
future
of
IOC,
and
then
we've
got
a
few.
Other
drafts
have
to
be
updated,
and
probably
briefly
touching
that
very
briefly
and
then
and
John
and
I
will
attempt
to
do
some
wrap-up
and
hopeful
drive
to
some
consensus
on
some
key
issues.
Anything
to
add
there,
okay,
so
looking
up
the
current
status
and
next
steps.
So
the
structured
document
which
we'll
hear
from
sure
first
on
in
a
few
minutes,
is
really
the
key
guiding
document.
A
A
What's
the
sources,
what's
the
decision,
there's
consensus,
so
we're
going
to
spend
a
lot
of
time
on
it,
the
only
the
other
drafts
that
we
have
to
replace
this.
This
keeps
getting
rather
and
I'm,
sort
of
simply
say.
If
you
see
something
say
something
so
you
know
if
you
see
somewhere,
first
I,
don't
see
legal
structure
of
this
or
that
and
that's
not
on
this
list.
Please
send
it
to
us
because
we,
you
know
these
are
sort
of
coming
out
of
the
woodwork
the
latest
when
we
found
this
on
our
CD
twenty
thirty
one.
A
47:43
77047,
which
is
about
the
selection
and
require
process
some
obvious
ones
there
and
then
IOC
selection
guidelines
in
process.
Obviously
so
all
of
those
and
again
I'm
I
would
not
be
surprised
if
we
found
another
one
or
two
working
here.
So,
like
I
said,
if
you
see
any
of
those
anywhere,
let
us
know
in
many
cases
these
are
as
simple
as
going
through
and
just
refreshing
the
thing
to
say
you
know
it's
refine
replace
IOC
to
IETF
LLC,
but
there
are
others
that
are
more
involved,
particularly
like
the
nominating
process
and
so
on.
A
A
A
C
B
C
E
B
C
C
C
C
C
B
G
Personally,
see
no
reason
for
that.
I
think
that
if
we
need
outside
expertise,
we
can
go
hire
them,
then
a
expertise
in
executing
it
is
very
different
than
he
did
as
the
directors
and
I
think
directors
of
the
board.
This
is
for
the
community.
They
should
have
some
connection
to
the
community
community,
even
if
it's
just
that
they.
G
C
H
H
Different
interest
groups
that
are,
you
know,
represented
in
that
community
company
whatever
and
now,
when
I'm
looking
of
these
through
here
you're
saying,
okay,
one
is
the
there
are
many
from
the
IHG
one
is
from
the
ISO
Board
of
Trustees.
But
what
is
the
difference
between
an
appointee
that
is,
for
example,
Pelican
selected
by
the
ISD.
H
The
ihd,
because
I
would
like
to
know
there
might
be
different
interests.
No
some
of
them
could
be.
You
know
for
fundraising
and
to
have
a
board
member
who
will
be
advising
and
having
strategic.
You
know
advice
on
how
to
fundraise,
because
sometimes
the
best
use
of
the
money
might
be
hire
an
external
company
or
a
group
of
people
who
know
how
to
fundraise.
We
can
introduce
you
to
this
group
set
up
know
when
to
ride
the
money,
and
that
is
one
part
on
you
know
trying
to
see.
C
C
H
C
H
A
I
think
you
know,
my
sense
is
that
maybe
this
is
a
we
need
to
document
further
similar
to.
Perhaps
there
are
different
communities,
but
ultimately
their
responsibilities
in
the
I
saw
cases
to
the
board,
and
you
know
community
in
the
objectives
there
and
that
you
know
in
this
case
it
would
be
the
responsibility
to
the
board
in
the
LLC,
regardless
of
what
community
process
they
came
up
through.
So
if
you
are
the
representative,
it
came
from,
the
I
saw
board
of
trustees,
you're,
not
merely
representing
the
perspective.
H
H
J
E
A
E
K
Selected
engineers,
known
as
the
NomCom,
are
the
right
people
to
actually
make
the
selection,
because
the
roles
and
the
kind
of
person
they're
looking
for
so
it's
totally
different
and
in
our
steering
work
an
architecture
board,
which
is
what
the
process
was
designed
for.
So
I
think
there
is
actually
still
question
over
whether
the
NomCom
that
we
use
for
this
is
the
same
long
come
as
the
existing
NomCom.
Simply.
L
Once
I
am
employed,
they
represent
the
interests
of
the
organization
as
laid
out
in
the
bylaws
and
we're
selecting
people
who
can
do
that,
regardless
of
where
they
come
from
because,
regardless
of
their
background
once
they're
homeless,
they
represent
the
community.
That's
what
they're
there
to
do,
that's
what
they
commit
to
doing
and
if
they
don't
do
it
well,
that's
the
discussion
about
with
that
said,
I'm
actually
somewhat
more
comfortable
with
option
1,
because,
even
though
everyone
would
be
representing
the
same
community
when
they're
seeding,
the
diversity
of
background
and
skills
is
important
and
I.
L
M
M
Stupid
and
less
is
better,
the
number
of
the
pool
of
people
is
going
to
be
the
same
at
the
beginning,
I
think
it's
gonna
be
okay.
If
we
have
seven,
if
we
just
you
know,
find
out
a
year
like.
N
N
N
Think
we
still
have
you
know
we
can
write.
We
can
write
down
what
we
think
is
required,
but
it's
really
large
space.
My
people
wrote
about
argument,
so
we
haven't
really
had
a
great
track
record
of
capturing
what
we
really
want
in
terms
of
position
descriptions
in
a
way
that
gets
applied
because
the
mongkhon,
fundamentally
it's
like
I-
want
somebody
like
me
or
like
that
other
person
I've
seen
in
action.
So
in
a
context
where
we're
talking
about
finding
people
who
weren't
for
the
mentoring
currently
visible
in
our
community.
N
O
E
O
An
organization
of
this
size
and
boards
that
our
board
mate
work.
They
invent
things
to
do
and
I
think
the
goal
here
is
partially
to
to
keep
this
tightly
constraints
about
what's
focused
on
oversight.
So
I
really
don't
like
option
two
just
because
of
the
potential
for
this
to
like
grow
hairs
and
I'm,
even
a
little
uncomfortable
with
the
seven
that
we
seem
to
have
converged
towards.
It
seems
to.
O
O
7S,
it
feels
to
me
still
too
large,
but
it's
not
completely
unmanageable.
I
mean
you're,
really
gonna
have
like
people
are
gonna,
invent
committees
and
and
I
think
that
we
don't
need
committees
and
so
on
this.
This
is
just
a
management
word
right.
This
isn't
this
isn't
sort
of,
like
you
know
the
the
board
of
like
a
billion-dollar
corporation,
it's
supposed
to
be
doing
something
very,
very
narrow,.
O
Sounds
like
Pete
Bresnik
I
came
up
mostly
to
disagree,
pretty
heavily
with
something
Dean
said
at
the
beginning.
I
think
you
really
need
to
disabuse
themselves
of
the
idea
of
any
of
these
people
representing
any
community
or
the
isochoric
trustees
or
the
IAS
G.
These
folks
are
board
members
of
an
LLC.
O
So
what
we
want
to
do
is
spend
most
of
our
time
worrying
about
that
Charter
and
bylaws
discussion
and
make
sure
that
those
are
solid
so
that
these
people
end
up
following
our
desires
in
the
royal
term,
but
you're
setting
up
a
dangerous
thing.
If
you
think
that
you
really
need
to
arrange
these
carefully
because
they're
gonna
represent
some
of
you,
I
think
that's
bogus.
P
P
The
second
is
that
I
actually
brought
people
a
little
rancid
diversity
of
you
play
here
then
Revere
her
to
find
without
some
mechanism
for
great
use,
and
the
reason
is
because
organization
setting
an
insular
and
they
have
reason
to
proceed
and
I
want
somebody
I'm
the
board.
However,
the
constituted
right
now
and
she
was
able
to
say
what
I've
been
up
to
organizations
and
what
you're
doing
is
crazy.
Like
you're
doing
this
thing
and
like
that
isn't,
and
so
it's
not
about
special
skills.
For
me,.
P
Sites
that
we're
gonna
find
yourselves
just
doing
things
that
we
you
always
have
and
and
that's
not
be
able
to
change,
important
ways
and
I
think
that's
a
work
that
and
so
people
say,
oh
really
bring
in
people's
to
Sutton's
most
well.
You
can't
purpose
I'll,
just
tell
you
what
you
want
to
hear
go
right
here,
so
so
I
think
so.
I
think
I
think.
P
Q
Q
Q
R
R
T
T
T
Actually
I
think
much
closer
to
to
agreement,
and
it
looks
like
from
the
length
of
these
lines
and
I
think
that's
a
good
thing.
The
second
began
what
it
sees
I've
actually
changed.
My
mind
about
this
I
came
out
very
strongly,
believing
that
the
the
appointments
by
the
LLC
board
itself
were
kind
of
fundamentally
a
bad
idea,
and
we
shouldn't
do
it.
Some
are
looking
at
the
eye
sock
model,
which
has
this
ability,
which
is
really.
E
T
T
And
even
though
it
doesn't
occur,
often
that
opportunity,
I,
think
kind
of
clarifies
the
board
around.
How
sometimes
having
specific
expertise
is
a
way
of
exercising
their
fiduciary
duty,
so
I
think
and
I've
kind
of
come
down
to
option.
Two
I
mean
particularly
thinking
that
this
is
going
to
be
an
extraordinary
event,
not
just
like
as
needed
kind
of
extraordinary
event,
but
the
probably
bootstrapping.
T
This
is
one
of
those
extraordinary
events,
and
we
probably
would
expect
this
to
occur
during
the
bootstrap
fades
and
and
probably
seats
and
and
go
back
to
a
smaller
board
once
the
things
have
Joe
and
I'd
also
like
to
comment
on
the
NomCom
piece.
Just
for
a
moment.
The
nam
khan
came
into
existence
to
replace
a
previous
system
to
demonstrate
the
consent
of
the
governed
and
I.
T
Think
that
the
point
that
it's
focused
on
the
NASD
in
IEP
is
exactly
that,
because
the
standards
process
is
the
part
of
this
or
the
consent
of
the
governed
is
the
most
important
I.
Think
for
the
bootstrapping
here.
Using
the
existing
non
con
is
an
important
thing
to
do
to
demonstrate
that
same
consent
and
that
we
can
move
from
there
to
ace
a
similar
body
constituted
post
facto
fairly
easily.
Understanding
from
this
mechanism
to
a
different
mechanism
involves.
W
W
W
W
These
are
really
great
candidates.
They
can
pick.
We
recommend
a
but
B's
your
back.
If
you
don't
like
it
and
so
the
non
comment,
it
said
become
a
the
process
to
say
because,
moreover,
validation,
yes,
that's
a
good
choice.
Now,
let's
ask
the
IC
for
confirmation.
After
we've
had
our
first
paucity
confirmation,
I
think.
E
D
D
K
D
A
I
think
it's
important
to
keep
in
mind
that
we,
we
already
have
I,
think
in
a
structured
document,
a
notion
of
like
a
two
to
three-year
look-back
and
review,
and
reassessment
and
I
think
as
well.
I
understand
legal
step
with
the
operating
agreement
is
that
the
director
numbers
and
sources
are
specified
in
an
appendix
this
might
be
discussed
later
on,
and
so
it
would
be
easy
in
the
future
or
relatively
easy
to
be
able
to
update
that
Astrup
anatomic
item
later
on.
H
Because
we
should
be
able
as
an
uncommon
arm
speaking
as
an
uncle
member,
to
say
we
didn't
find
satisfying
candidates.
We
don't
want
to
put
somebody
on
the
board
because
we
have
to
fill
in
that.
Well
with
this
task
of
seven
directors,
you
pay
them
you're,
putting
in
a
pretty
tough
task
to
do
that,
you're,
not
in
a
pretty
short
period
of
time-
and
you
might
end
up
you
know
with
you
know,
with
none
both
candidates.
H
It
is
better
to
start
with
a
smaller
number
and
leave
the
option
to
expand,
or
so
saying
this
is
our
initial
bar
of
seven
people,
even
if,
even
if
you
get
you
know
like
three
candidates,
for
example,
nominated
who
will
get
knowing
if
an
uncle
it
doesn't
mean
that
all
three
should
be
low.
Today,
that's
better
the
size,
that's
mine!
That's
in
the
run
of
my.
D
X
X
O
X
O
The
people
who
keep
saying
well,
you
know
Don
come,
has
these
skills
and
so
on.
I.
Don't
think
that
the
other
point
about
the
made
this
argument
before
in
the
West,
but
it
seems
to
dropped
away
so
I'm,
going
to
make
it
again
supposed
to
hear
an
engineer
of
some
kind
with
some
financial
company
needs
some
special
engineering
skill
for
some
reason
they
made
you
could
come
in
and
so
on
and
and
what
they
told
you
is.
We
have
a
process
by
which
we
have
a
whole
bunch
of
financial
things
and
we're.
E
B
H
B
A
J
C
AA
AA
AA
X
H
H
A
The
way
but
I
think
about
it
in
the
way
that
I'm
trying
to
structure
their
black
you
sort
of
guiding
the
questions
here
is
we've
not
seen
basic
level
like
a
minimum
number
of
people
that
you
will
always
have
that
number
right,
I
mean
something
could
get
replaced
right.
So
I
think
the
question
is,
you
know,
is
it
you
know?
Is
that
five
hours?
That's
seven,
that's
really
the
key
question
and
in
either
of
those
scenarios
which
we'll
get
to
as
a
second
question.
A
AA
B
L
B
L
Hats,
not
my
first
rodeo
five,
our
ongoing
basis,
you
know,
Z,
is
permanently
established.
Basic
number
feels
a
little
too
small
to
me
and
subject
to
capture,
but
it
should
be
enough
to
do
the
business
of
the
board
if
there
are
temporary
and
vacancies
7i.
So
in
nine
feels
too
big
to
me
for
the
reasons
we've
called
out
here,
which
makes
seven
either
the
best
or
the.
B
Now,
right
there
seven,
but
five
is
the
middle.
That's
what's
actually
in
there
now,
because
people
here
we
should
go
around
and
see,
say
some
hums.
Let's
see
who
thinks
five,
who
thinks
seven?
Who
thinks
nine?
This
is
not
a.
What
can
you
live
with?
This
is
a
what
do
you
think
it
should
be?
Let's
do
that
first
and
see
how
this
goes:
sound,
good,
okay,
Jason,
we're
doing.
B
B
B
Anybody
want
to
say
more
about
that
so
I
mean
so
what
we
have
in
the
documents
you
dad.
Let
me
let
me
now
go
to
you
know
what,
if
the
language
is
exactly
there,
which
is
you
know,
five
is
the
minimum
that
we
required
to
do
this,
but
seven
would
be
better.
Can
I
just
a
harm
on
who
likes
that
as
the
approach
now
that.
T
B
B
P
B
I
think
was
a
little
louder
for
who
who
couldn't
live
with
five,
but
it
was
again
it's
always
hard
to
straight
to
choose
between
the
things
that
are
actually
based
in
them
and
where
it's
not
going
to
make
huge
difference,
and
this
is
where
we
can
easily
get
into
the
bike.
Shedding
I
mean
I
mean
under
these
circumstances,
I
think
what's
in
the
document
is
reasonable
and
it's
wide
open
the
document
and
if
someone
get
there
with
it,
let's,
let's
do
that.
AC
Don't
necessarily
think
it's
a
big
mistake:
I
do
think
people
are
under
estimating
how
hard
it's
gonna
be
to
find
qualified
people.
We
may
come
back
and
say:
wow,
you
know
it's
good.
It's
fine
to
find
III
qualified
people
along
with
the
T
statutory
ones
is
all
we
can
do,
but
no
but
I
think
it's
perfectly
reasonable
to
go
and
see
what
we
can
do,
but
but
keep
in
mind
that
once
we
actually
understand
what
this
thing
does
and
what
the
directors
actually
do,
we
may
have
significant
revisions
of
the
process
to
sort
of
reality.
B
AC
AD
AD
Barely
website,
because
both
Glen
and
John
made
some
comment
about
one
said
something
about
the
board:
the
ice
at
Board
of
Trustees
person
would
be
too
busy
and
John
said
to
statutory
people,
which
I
presume
you
mean
ex-officio
kind
of
things.
The
the
one
appointed
by
the
Board
of
Trustees
is
not
a
board
of
trustees.
Member.
It's
just
that
more.
It
made
the
appointment.
Correct
I
mean.
AD
B
AD
AD
H
It's
important
just
as
clarification.
That
means
that,
with
five
members,
the
LLC
can
legally
operate
that
case
I'm.
Finding
this
a
reason,
because
the
minimum
number
is
five
higher
yes,
but
I
am
where
our
target
number
is
seven
right.
That's
that's!
That's
sorry,
though,
but
the
minimum
for
legal
operation
is
five.
Yes,.
B
A
A
You
know
I
think
at
one
extreme
you
have
a
minimum
of
five
and
that's
all
it
ever
is
right.
So
that's
you
know.
You've
always
got
these
first.
Two
votes,
which
is
you
know,
one
from
the
iesg
round
from
the
I
saw
Board
of
Trustees
that
carries
through
four
out
of
these
options
and
this
one
you
would
have
potentially
two
from
the
NomCom
and
one
from
the
board
option.
B
A
bit
more
so
since
I
remember
two
we're
talking
kind
of
about
what
we're
gonna
need
to
do
as
a
startup
right
and
then
what
we
need
to
do
going
forward
and
those
there's
going
to
be
this
exception.
A
start-up
case
that
we're
starting
with
here,
if
we're
having
our
target
number,
be
seven,
presumably
option.
One
is
not
one
that
were
to
be
taking
comes
for
that
this
time
around
anyway.
B
X
X
X
E
X
B
And
just
to
be
clear,
so
I'm
kind
of
passively
reading
induction
three
as
well.
You
know
because
we
can
operate
under
exceptional
conditions.
There
might
be
part
of
startup
wait,
there's
an
exceptional
condition.
We
might
not
have
three
people
and
that
we
can
feel
from
the
NomCom
initially
or
something
right.
I
mean
I,
I,
wouldn't
point
being
option
three
when
we're
talking
about
where
these
appointments
come
from
this
structurally,
where
they're
supposed
to
come
from
that,
doesn't
necessarily
mean
that
they're
going
to
be
seven
people
at
a
startup
time
or
doing
some
exceptional
condition.
A
A
Those
extra
sources
are
only
from
the
NomCom
and
there's
no
ability
either
on
a
regular
or
as-needed
basis
for
there
to
be
self
appointments
from
the
LLC
and
that's
maybe
a
critical
question
and
I
think
that
the
consensus
seem
to
be
in
the
room
that
it
was
okay
to
have
some
self
appointments
which
might
drop
the
option
for
when
we're
narrowing
down
to
one.
But
today
you
know
one
choice,
maybe
yeah.
B
I
mean
and
I
think
between
two
and
three.
There
is
very
much
in
this
structurally
saying
the
board
is
on
the
hook
to
provide
to
people
for
our
ideal
target
number
for
the
board,
whereas
option
two
is
saying
as
needed,
all
these
things
and
it's
much
more
dynamic
right
and
so
I
that
I
think
that's
the
distinction
between
those
two
rates,
they're
people
that
likes
speaker,
okay,
Grundy
and
I'm,.
W
W
If
the
NomCom,
however,
it
has
three
good
candidates
and
two
sneakers
I
want
them
to
have
the
ability
to
say
no
to
those
two
candidates
that
are
just
not
good
candidates,
and
this
gives
by
conducive
Lynch's
point,
which
is,
if
you
say
you
got
to
fill
three
slots
and
you've
got
three
bodies.
You're
done,
and
we
don't
want
that
to
happen.
We
want
them
to
have
their
data
say
we
can't
fill
that
slot
and
we
don't
need
other
process.
W
G
AA
Cooper,
just
in
response
to
Gwen,
it
may
be
it's
just
a
different
way
of
framing
the
problem,
but
you
still
have
to
make
the
decision
this
way,
because
there
are
common
aids.
Clear
instructions
like
it
can't
just
be
totally
variable
to
the
NomCom.
L
Lynch
I
will
point
out
that
you
have
a
bootstrap
problem
in
the
first
instance
with
options
to
and
two
and
three
if
the
nom-nom
come
is
unable
to
return
three
people,
because
you
never
get
to
the
board
being
able
to
appoint
those
additional
members.
If
the
non
come
fails.
So
there
there
is
a
progenitor
there.
That's
gonna
require
extra
care
for
some.
Oh
yeah.
X
Scott
mansfield
erickson
just
to
help
move
along
with
an
opinion
on
what
I
think
the
correct
option
is
here:
I
really
like
option
two
personally,
because
I've
dealt
with
a
lot
of
standards.
Bodies
that
deal
with
these
things
in
super-secret
ways
and
two
seems
a
lot
more
transparent
to
me,
but
giving
the
board
flexibility
to
a
point
as
needed.
That
would
hopefully
be
something
that
would
really
be
used
as
needed
in
the
community
for
caution.
Anakin's.
X
If
it
wasn't
that's,
why
I
really
like
option
two
better
than
three,
because
three
means
that
you
are
going
to
have
people
that
are
appointed
in
a
way
that
the
community
has
no
idea
how
they
were
appointed
so
and
I.
Don't
really
know
how
you
get
to
the
I
know
that
there's
a
the
first
time
you
do.
This
there's
going
to
be
an
issue
of
doing
option
three,
because
you
have
to
have
a
board
in
order
to
a
point
from
the
board,
so
I'm
not
sure
that
wouldn't
work.
X
When
you
get
further
down
the
road-
and
you
have
people
that
are
there
for
a
year
in
two
years
and
three
years,
then
it
does
make
sense
option
three
makes
more
sense
in
that
than,
as
you
have
people
that
are
on
the
board.
That
can
then
appoint
other
people
like
at
startup
phase,
I,
think
option.
Three
provides
less
transparency
as.
V
Well,
I
got
you:
okay,
thanks
Karen
Thanks.
We
can't
discuss
the
option
of
non
compelling
as
soon
as
you
put
a
minion
qualms
for
a
board.
This
is
how
it
works
with
all
boards.
You
now
have
a
minimum
and
you
cannot
operate.
They
cannot
fail.
The
NomCom
has
to
deliver
people.
That
means,
if
only
five
people
apply
to
the
job
and
they
have
to
provide
three
or
whatever
the
number
is,
and
they
have
three.
Those
people
are
automatically
appointed
in
a
conversation
and
that's
how
boards
work
and
it's
not
just
a
startup
issue.
V
H
H
L
G
When
was
talking
about
and
what
alyssa
was
talking
about
is
if
we
look
at
that
as
as
needed,
if
the
board
wants
to,
they
can
always
ask
NomCom
to
try
to
fill
those
slots,
so
it
actually
gives
us
a
lot
of
flexibility
there
and
we
don't
have
to
write
that
down.
You
know:
that's
their
choice,
that's
how
they
want
to
fill
it.
So
it
seems
like
option.
Two
has
the
right
amount
of
flexibility.
N
X
B
I'm
not
really
hearing
anybody
go
to
bat,
for,
for
at
least,
is
written
and
I'm
hearing
a
lot
of
people
who
seem
to
think
option.
Two
is
good
again,
I,
think
I.
Think
actor
is
quite
correct
to
characterize.
The
real
distinction
here
is
whether
we
want
to
build
structurally
into
this
board
that
independent
director
idea
when
I
look
at
the
difference
between
two
and
three
like
three
is
really
saying
the
way.
B
AD
Mm-Hmm,
it's
Barry,
leaving
on
Akers
point
I'm
good
with
two,
but
I
want
to
make
sure
that
when
we
actually
put
that
in
we
don't
say
that
the
as-needed
is
a
truly
exceptional
situation.
I
want
to
give
them
the
flexibility
to
routinely
have
board
members
coming
in
from
the
outside
that
they've
called
them.
Yes,
there
definitely
is
a
spectrum
as.
M
AD
Okay,
yes,
you
need
to
stop
having
side
conversations.
What
I
mean
is
I,
don't
mean
just
bringing
them
in
informally,
but
I
don't
want
it
to
be.
We
need.
We
need
a
board
member
from
the
outside.
We
have
to
define
an
exceptional
situation
that
allows
us
to
do
that.
I
would
like
that
to
be
up
to
the
board
we'd
like
the
board
to
be
able
to
do
that
at
their
discretion.
Yeah.
A
That's
a
good
point:
I
think
we
feel
that
a
number
of
times
on
the
mailing
list
as
well,
that
you
don't
want
it
to
be
so
exceptional
that
when
you
invoke
it
the
community's
like
wait,
why
are
you
doing
this?
What's
the
problem
and
the
bar
is
so
high,
and
so
there
might
be
some
argument
in
that
scenario,
you
start
out
in
your
doing
one
or
something
saying
you
establish
the
normalcy
of
that
and
we
can
put
that
sort
of
philosophy
or
that
expectation
in
the
structure,
documents
and
others.
So
the
board
chair
can
invite.
H
People
to
the
meetings
based
on
I
mean
this
usually
in
the
you
know,
in
the
broad
structures
that
the
board
chair
can
invite
people
to
the
meetings
that
he
believes
will
contribute
to
their
discussion.
The
dead
right
and
there
is
difference
between
an
advisor
and
the
board
member.
So
I
am
very
much
in
favor
that
you
know
a
board
chair
would
go
Cho
based
on
the
group.
Recommendation
brings
an
adviser
to
the
meeting,
and,
but
here
is
saying,
if
you
want,
you
know,
you
can
increase
them
and
I
understand
those
are
the
members.
H
T
I
agree
with
some
of
what
was
said
earlier,
but
I
want
to
put
a
slightly
different
spin
on
it.
That
I
think
is
important.
I
think
it
is
possible
that
startup
phase
will
be
an
exceptional
event
and
that,
as
a
result,
we
will
see
a
very
early
exercise
of
this
facility,
but
I
think
that's
different
from
making
it
so
completely
normalized
that
the
board
doesn't
have
to
define
to
the
community
why
they
are
doing
an
external
appointment.
I
think
if
it
gets
the
point
where
they
feel
like
this
is
the
common
practice.
T
T
B
All
in
favor
of
option
three
is
discussed
your
keys
now
right
there
are
some
some
vocal,
vocal
minority
there
loud
voices,
some
but
I
think
that
was
pretty
good
for
option
two.
Actually,
that's
pretty
good
option,
three
people.
If
you
were
coming
for
option
three,
if
you
can't
live
with
option
two,
please
some
now
I
think
that's.
That
was
nobody.
P
AE
B
Characterize
the
consensus,
therefore,
two
versus
three
I'd
say
it's
a
solid
consensus.
Okay,
thank
you.
A
AE
AA
AA
AA
P
G
G
U
Oh
ATF
legal
counsel
just
to
confirm
that
point.
Yes,
it's
a
operating
agreement
since,
where
LLC
corporation
violence,
we
have
a
certificate
of
formation
and
an
operating
agreement
so
that
we're
calling
the
LLC
agreement
agreement
that
is
sort
of
the
equivalent
of
bylaws
for
an
LLC
and-
and
we
do
capture
points
like
duties
of
directors.
U
You
know
in
the
main
body
of
the
of
the
LLC
agreement,
I
actually
got
in
the
cube
to
make
a
different
point
that
I
nodded
yes
to
Alyssa
in
connection
with
records,
question
about
exactly
how
it
work
in
that
sort
of
sort
of
Killswitch
scenario,
where
something's
gone,
sort
of
deeply
awry
and
in
the
and
I
saw
it
needed
to
appoint
board
members
as
I
need
to
remove
board
members.
It
actually
would
be
at
that
point.
U
This
would
be
kind
of
a
disaster
scenario
or
something's
gone
seriously
wrong,
but
I
misspoke
when
I
indicated
yes
to
Alyssa
the
the
way
he
would
work
is
in
that
scenario,
as
currently
drafted,
I
saw
would
have
the
ability
to
reappoint
directors,
so
they
could
remove
and
then
reappoint
directors
to
the
LLC.
So.
P
P
R
Just
to
put
this
in
some
context
doesn't
bother
me
as
long
as
we
are
dependent
on
I
thought
for
most
of
our
funding.
There's
a
much
bigger
lever
than
doing
this.
So
if
we
have
some
other
source
of
funding,
fine,
we
can
do
something
different,
but
in
for
the
next
period
of
time,
I
think
that's
the
real
reality
under
this
and
who
can
push?
Take
people
restructure.
The
LLC
doesn't
really
matter
I.
AA
AC
V
AA
AA
O
And
I
think
I
can
say
fairly
for
I
saw
that,
with
the
proviso
just
saying
that
we
like
to
get
away
from
some
of
that
informality,
there
is
no
hope
of
any
kind.
You
know,
I
sock
is
going
to
disappear
and
just
kind
of
decide
that
this
is
all
not
really
interesting
to
us.
So
so
don't
have
the
idea
that
you
know.
That's
all
just
you
know
like
day
two,
and
you
know
nope
can't
talk
to
anybody
because
we've
got
a
service
agreement.
You
know
we're
not
we're
not
large
international
IT
support
company.
AA
AA
AA
O
F
F
L
You
should
the
reserve
transfers
for
my
sake,
and
it
looks
like
that
reserve
gets
increased
if
we
have
a
savings
year-over-year
and
it
increases
based
on
cash
out
of
the
endowment.
But
if
we
had
a
catastrophic
year,
it
had
canceled
me
down
at
this
point.
From
now
on
me
allows
the
LLC
and
our
fundraising
efforts
are
responsible.
AF
When
we
were
discussing
this,
actually
it
goes
both
ways
right.
So
if
you
see
here
actually
the
reserve
grows
to
12
billion.
We
don't
know
what
the
operating
cost
will
be
in
in
2021,
but
jaggies
to
cover
a
rainy
day
whatever
of
three
years
right.
So
in
that
sense,
if
we
are
giving
too
much
money,
maybe
if
the
idea
is
to
reduce
it
a
bit
if
you
we
got,
you
know
you
have
trolleys
that
we
service
is
smaller.
AF
AF
U
Just
say
to
the
source
of
this
document,
so
so
David
if
earlier
this
is
our
legal
counsel,
just
wait
over
there
and
you
know
we,
we
started
with
fearsome
four
basic
forms.
You
know
they
essentially
form
documents
that
are
used
to
create
LLC's,
there's.
No,
so
we
started
with.
We
did
really
think
carefully
about
precise
facts,
so
I
think
it's
not
necessarily.
You
know.
This
is
just.
U
U
AA
AE
AA
U
H
Many
of
us
know
people
who
are
now
semi-retired
and
they
are
no
net
worth
individuals
and
are
still
active
by
the
owner
before
thematic
and
we
could
use
you
know
an
internal
call
for
nomination.
You
know
for
that
work
position
even
during
our
plenary,
because
people
might
have
some
ideas
or
they
spoke
with
someone
who
is
so
doing
some
work
and
such
people
might
be
willing
to
come
in
on
the
experience.
AA
AA
N
Less
today,
two
comments
about
the
IMC
intramural
Seaborg.
One
knows
he
has
currently
constituent
constituted,
is
larger
than
the
most
else.
If
one
its
us
are
not
doing
the
same
function
its
we
have
a
problem
where
we
don't
need
to
establish
habits.
I
am
carrying
over
a
lot
of
what
is
different
about
my
OC
angel
I
appreciate
the
practicality
of
identifying
people
who
have
some
awareness
of
the
current
state
of
things
and
managing
history,
but
I
would
strongly
suggest,
don't
call
it.
N
AA
R
Okay,
so
I
was
gonna
talk
about
ITF
trusts
and
the
impacts
that
it
will
have
based
on
the
is
a
2.0
change
this,
and
there
is
a
small
impact,
there's
no
impact
to
the
actual
thing
that
ITF
transferred
to,
but
there
is
an
impact
for
for
how
people
get
named
errors.
As
you
know,
today,
the
the
IOC
members,
including
the
ex
officio
members,
are
also
trustees
of
the
trusts,
and
we
do
need
to
change
this.
R
Fortunately,
and
I
will
get
the
details
in
in
a
sec,
but
unfortunately
we
don't
actually
have
to
do
this
on
a
critical
path,
so
we
can
actually
operate
for
given
some
some
of
the
details
of
the
contract.
So
so
there's
no
major
urgency
for
is
something
that
we
should
do
and
there's
two
drafts
when
that
such
the
actual
making
and
in
the.
R
Trustees
election
all
other
aspects
of
the
idea
of
trust
remain
us
as
it
is
today,
and
the
proposed
trustees
election
going
forward
after
the
change
or
after
this
is
adopted,
would
be
that
there
be
three
trustees
were
from
the
NomCom
confirmed
by
the
IHT,
the
turns
between
years,
one
trustee
appointed
by
the
isg
and
one
trustee
appointed
by
the
Isaac,
but
okay,
and
so
no
no
ex
officio
members
and
in
sort
of
smaller
set
of
people
than
then
previously
and
just
to
get
to
their
like
know
by
this.
And
what
is
it
today?
I?
R
What's
the
difference
so
currently
the
IOC
members
serve
as
trustees,
I
think
it's
all
together.
Nine
nine
people
and
the
trust
is
also
formally
defined.
I
mean
we
have
our
sees
about
this,
but
the
formal
actual
definition
is
in
the
founding
documents
of
the
trust
and
and
and
and
the
current
documents
say
that
the
eligible
trustees
have
to
be
current
members
of
the
IOC
and
it
it
also
says.
R
It
also
says
that
if
this,
for
any
reason,
fewer
than
three
individuals
serving
as
first
base
than
the
is
te
shall
appoint
one
or
more
individuals
to
serve
unit
temporary
capacity
as
trustees.
So
this
is
the
thing
in
the
current
contracts
that
that
actually
saves
us
from
doing
this
on
the
critical
path
we
can
have
the
IHC
appoint
people
if
we
have
no
updated
RFC.
Of
course
maybe
we
do
have.
This
is
fairly
simple
thing
to
do.
I
think
so.
So
when
AB
skipped
RFC
down
in
time,.
R
And
up
leveling
a
little
bit
the
different
way
ways
to
think
about
this
change.
So
obviously
some
change
is
needed
and
what
should
we
do
with
the
ITF
trusts?
And
our
goal
here
was
that
we
actually
went
the
course
minimal
change
and
we,
the
idea
of
trust
tasks
and
characteristics
of
people
that
is
needed
to
manage.
R
R
We
also
think
that,
given
the
nature
of
the
task
in
the
terms,
tournaments
is
reasonable
and
reducing
the
number
of
people
for
this
is
reasonable,
except
details
of
how
many
people
and
so
forth.
That's
it
that's
the
thing
that
we
could
discuss
the
current
draft.
We
have
also
suggest
that
there
are
no
ex
officio
members.
R
R
It
could
maybe
make
a
reasonable
argument
that
that
one
of
those,
perhaps
that
IITs
chairs,
should
still
be
there,
but
that's
that
this
is
our
starting
proposal.
At
least
I
didn't
know
a
couple
of
things.
So,
first
of
all,
so
it's
not
just
the
RFC's.
We
also
have
the
trustee
the
formal
trusts
founding
documents
and
those
can
be
updated
and
I.
Think
they've
been
updated
in
the
past
means
the
community,
but
essentially
this.
R
R
It's
not
just
the
ones
here
in
this
room
or
even
sort
of
those
working
in
the
IETF,
and
one
example
of
that
is
that
we
recently
took
hold
out
the
IANA
related
IP,
which
is
the
trademark
and
domain
name,
and
you
know
if
we
think
we
are
making
a
change
in
the
trust,
then
we
should
certainly
inform
our
other
communities
about
this.
We
have
this
community
coordination
group,
as
you
see,
T
I
could
take
take
on
that
or
but
that's
convenient
place
to
send
that
information
to
and
they
can
take
it
to
their
own
communities.
R
We
haven't
done
that
yet
keeping
that
this
is
just
you
know:
somebody's
zero,
zero
document.
But
if
this
gains
traction
in
the
working
group,
then
we
should
certainly
do
that
and
make
sure
that
everybody's
aware-
and
the
idea
of
course,
is
that
we
should
not
shake
this
system
too
hard
in
any
fashion.
It's
it's
a
relatively
what
has
changed
and-
and
it's
desirable
to
have
some
stability
there
anyway.
R
R
AC
John
Levine
I
happen
to
be
a
trustee,
although
I
certainly
am
NOT
speaking
of
I
think
this
is
basically
fine.
I
would
I
would
sit.
I
would
suggest
making
the
terms
even
longer,
like
five
years,
because
the
trust
the
ongoing
work
of
the
trust
is
pretty
simple
and
the
set
of
skills
is
something
way.
You
know
it's
it's
different
from
from
the
the
mainstream
IETF
stuff
as
the
LLC
is,
but
in
a
different
direction.
AC
K
Is
just
a
team
email
was
the
phrase
singled.
The
trust
agreement
should
be
changed
at
their
earliest.
Convenience
is
a
bit
too
aggressive,
because,
if
we're
clever,
we
can
synchronize
the
change
and
reduce
the
name
that
made
for
injuring
trustees.
I
just
said
a
suggested
alternative
wording
to
you
by
email,
so
I
want
wordsmith
right
here.
AG
AG
R
P
P
T
O
This
is
another
sölden
and
I
am
also
a
trustee,
but
I
do
not
speak
for
them.
I.
The
the
danger
in
adding
any
ex
officio
thing
here
is
the
is
that
community
consultation
group,
because
since
we're
changing
the
makeup
of
this
by
just
saying
we're
just
appointing
people,
then
there's
an
argument
to
be
made
that
look.
O
We
don't
have
representativity
and
so
on,
but
one
of
the
affected
communities
here
is
very
big
on
representative
appointments
to
things,
and
so,
if
we
start
doing
ex
officio
things,
I
think
we
will
get
pressure
to
have
a
lot
of
other
ex
officio
appointments
to
it.
So
I
would
I
would
I
like
that
feature.
Quite
a
lot.
That's
a
good
point.
T
Document,
author
and
also
a
trustee,
but
in
speaking
primarily
just
as
an
individual
at
the
moment
and
I-
think
one
of
the
things
that
we
we
have
in
mind
here
is
that
serving
as
a
trustee
should
not
disqualify
you
from
service
in
other
roles.
Typically,
we
say
we
don't
want
you
to
be
on
di
ASG
and
there
may
be
at
the
same
time
or
the
ice
hat
board
and
the
IEP
at
the
same
time,
because
you're
in
each
other's
Appeals
chain.
T
G
R
Doesn't
have
the
pressure,
the
same
pressure,
which
is
a
good
thing,
but
that
doesn't
necessarily
mean
that
we
should
you
know
not
fake
things
forward.
This
is
I,
think
a
relatively
simple
thing
and
we
didn't
know
how
people
in
this
discussion
here
seems
the
people
are
relatively
well
aligned.
So
this
could
probably
go
forward.
Well,
if
you
soon,
but
obviously
taking
the
RFC
through
approval,
will
take
some
time
and
I.
Don't
think
we
can
ask
her
this
RFC
until
we
actually
accrued
it.
A
So
I
think
just
to
wrap
up.
We
have
next
week,
I
think
that
couple
of
drafts
that
we
mentioned,
we
don't
really
need
to
discuss
because
they're
gonna
need
to
be
updated,
but
anyway
we
obviously
have
to
update
the
structure.
A
document
to
reflect
the
discussion
that
we've
had
today
would
be
a
confirmation
of
consensus
and
the
mailing
list
for
what
we
decided
on
as
well.