Merge pull request #69 from richsalz/typo-fixes

Fix some typo's

draft-iasa2-retrospective-2.md

@@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ To the extent that the IETF LLC undertakes any significant special projects for
 
    **Comments:** This remains a significant focus of the IETF LLC. 
 
-   Sponsorship income has been stable but has not dramatically increased to the extent hoped. To try to increase sponsorship funding, the IETF LLC has modernised our sponsorship offerings by creating [new programs](https://www.ietf.org/support-us/sponsorship/), such as Diversity & Inclusion, Running Code and Sustainability. However, ut is at risk as some traditional IETF sponsor companies reduce their standards-related spending.
+   Sponsorship income has been stable but has not dramatically increased to the extent hoped. To try to increase sponsorship funding, the IETF LLC has modernized our sponsorship offerings by creating [new programs](https://www.ietf.org/support-us/sponsorship/), such as Diversity & Inclusion, Running Code and Sustainability. However, it is at risk as some traditional IETF sponsor companies reduce their standards-related spending.
 
    Donations to the IETF Endowment have in contrast been disappointing. As a result, the IETF LLC eliminated a staff role and redesigned its fundraising approach to be sector-specific and targeted rather than general. Board attention on and prioritization of this activity should continue to be high. It may require additional staff, contractor, or other resources to reach its full potential.
 
@@ -142,11 +142,11 @@ To the extent that the IETF LLC undertakes any significant special projects for
 
 The IETF LLC is responsible, on behalf of the IETF, for legal compliance, which includes managing legal risks and third-party legal activity. Since 2018, this has included things such as responding to subpoenas, initiating litigation to recover debt and responding to threats of litigation. This recent experience has identified two important gaps that need to be resolved.
 
-First, is how the IETF as a whole responds when a third-party makes a credible threat of litigation against the IETF or initiates litigation against the IETF. In these cases, the best practice is to minimize risk by only communicating with the litigant through counsel. However, with an organization as distributed and volunteer-based as the IETF, it is not clear how this affects the roles and activity of such groups as the IESG or Ombudsteam when communication with or engaging with third-parties thave have threatened or are engaged in litigation agains the IETF.
+First, is how the IETF as a whole responds when a third-party makes a credible threat of litigation against the IETF or initiates litigation against the IETF. In these cases, the best practice is to minimize risk by only communicating with the litigant through counsel. However, with an organization as distributed and volunteer-based as the IETF, it is not clear how this affects the roles and activity of such groups as the IESG or Ombudsteam when communication with or engaging with third-parties that have threatened or are engaged in litigation against the IETF.
 
 To address this first gap, we propose consulting with the IESG, IAB, IRTF, Ombudsteam, and any other parts of the IETF to agree a legal protocol to be used to communicate with a third-party who makes a credible threat of litigation or initiates litigation, and to document this in an official IETF LLC policy. As with other policies, this would be developed with community input. 
 
-Second, the work of the Ombudsteam function can have significant legal implications for the IETF.  For example, if the Ombudsteam excludes an individual from any part of the IETF process then that person, or their employer, may litigate this decision. However, under the current operating practices defined in [RFC 7776](https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7776), the Ombusdteam is required to keep their decisions confidential and so IETF LLC Board does not have any visibility into those possible legal issues and risks, and is therefore unable to properly implement risk management procedures. This issue remains even though [RFC 8716 / BCP 25](https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8716) updated RFC 7776, because that update was not substantive (the name of the IAOC function was simply updated to the IETF LLC).
+Second, the work of the Ombudsteam function can have significant legal implications for the IETF.  For example, if the Ombudsteam excludes an individual from any part of the IETF process then that person, or their employer, may litigate this decision. However, under the current operating practices defined in [RFC 7776](https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7776), the Ombudsteam is required to keep their decisions confidential and so IETF LLC Board does not have any visibility into those possible legal issues and risks, and is therefore unable to properly implement risk management procedures. This issue remains even though [RFC 8716 / BCP 25](https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8716) updated RFC 7776, because that update was not substantive (the name of the IAOC function was simply updated to the IETF LLC).
 
 To address the second gap, we propose to initiate a community proceeding to update RFCs pertaining to the Ombudsteam function to enable information sharing with the IETF LLC in order to allow the IETF LLC to properly discharge its duty to manage legal risk.
 
@@ -170,7 +170,7 @@ In addition, at the executive support level there is also separation, as the IET
 
 The key reason for this divergence is that the IETF LLC, as the more recent of the two organizations to be created by the community, was given a clear and detailed set of community requirements in BCP 101 for how it should operate. These include a set of principles for it to follow, such as significant transparency and strong community responsiveness, and a requirement for an extensive set of governance policies created through community consultation, which it put in place since soon after inception. 
 
-More fundamentally, the IETF LLC understands that the IETF Trust solely exists due to and in the service of the IETF. Not only is IETF in the name of the IETF Trust, but the IETF Trust's website is within the IETF's ietf.org domain, the IETF Nominating Committee selects trustees, and the IETF Trust notes their purpose is "acquiring, holding, maintaining and licensing certain existing and future intellectual property and other property used in connection with the Internet standards process and its administration..." The IETF, and thus by extension the IETF LLC as the legal home of the IETF, is thus the sole beneficiary of the IETF Trust.
+More fundamentally, the IETF LLC understands that the IETF Trust solely exists due to and in the service of the IETF. Not only is IETF in the name of the IETF Trust, but their website is within the IETF's ietf.org domain, the IETF Nominating Committee selects trustees, and the IETF Trust notes their purpose is "acquiring, holding, maintaining and licensing certain existing and future intellectual property and other property used in connection with the Internet standards process and its administration..." The IETF, and thus by extension the IETF LLC as the legal home of the IETF, is thus the sole beneficiary of the IETF Trust.
 
 The community may wish to consider discussing potential structural options for closing the gap between the IETF LLC and IETF Trust, and consider whether a similar set of community requirements would be appropriate for the IETF Trust - particularly as it completes its transformation from a trust to a corporation with similar legal obligations as the IETF LLC.