At 10:20 AM +0100 12/8/04, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
"Donations to the IETF shall be irrevocably committed to the support
of the IETF".
There are already laws about designated/earmarked donations that make
I think that the point that Brian was trying to make is that the
meeting fees should also be committed to the support of the IETF.
The fact of the matter is that it is unlikely that the IETF will have
a surplus generated by meeting fees and designated donations, so it
is hard to get excited about this problem. However, I do understand
the point that if we ever do have a surplus from these sources, we
don't want ISOC to use that money for other nefarious purposes :-).
I don't think that there is any real disagreement about this, but I
do think that it is difficult to:
(1) Determine how much of this should be explained in the BCP.
(2) Figure out how to say it.
Maybe we could be more simple in our wording? Something like:
The IETF meeting fees and IASA/IETF-designated donations will only be
used to support IASA and the IETF. If the total of these funding
sources is larger than the total cost of the IASA function, the
surplus will be held in the IASA account for later use to support
IASA and the IETF. If the total of these funding sources is smaller
than the total cost of the IASA function, resulting in a deficit, we
are expecting ISOC to cover that deficit from non-IASA/IETF
Ietf mailing list