--On Wednesday, 08 December, 2004 14:21 +0100 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no> wrote:
--On 8. desember 2004 14:00 +0100 "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)"
<bwijnen(_at_)lucent(_dot_)com> wrote:
How about
Once funds or in-kind donations have been credited to the
IETF accounts, they shall be irrevocably allocated to the
support of the IETF.
That one seems sensible to me. And is completely consistent
with the more specific treatment in section 5, I think.
Folks, this discussion (and the whole thread) suggests a very
important general point to me. Since I've tried to make it
before and want to avoid being inflammatory, I won't repeat it
here.
At a more specific level, the suggested text, both above and in
iasa-bcp-02, omit one case that should be covered, especially if
we are get even close to words like "irrevocably".
However slight we might consider the possibility, the IETF might
actually, some day, reach the point of sufficient irrelevancy
that no one cared any more and that no one but the most
dedicated of Go-ers bothered to come to meetings, volunteer to
serve on the Nomcom, agree to serve on the IAB or IESG if
selected, and so on. If we achieved that position, I'd hope the
IETF could fade quietly into the night, rather than, e.g.,
having to maintain an IASC structure forever in order to manage
whatever residual funds existed.
So, IMO, the further we go in the direction of "irrevocably"
committing funds to "the IETF", the more we need to make
explicit provisions for IETF failure as well as for ISOC failure
or some other separation event. The usual mechanisms are to
designate some appropriate charity. Personally, I wouldn't
have a problem with that charity _being_ ISOC, but other
arrangements and selection mechanisms are possible -- they just
require more words and processes. In any event, the document
doesn't appear to do that job yet.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf