--On torsdag, desember 02, 2004 09:11:27 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
<brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com> wrote:
I should also note that the current IASA BCP is quite vague about how the
ISOC is to assist the IASA in reaching the desired level of working
capital. One could interpret this as being purely an IASA operating
decision (e.g. if you want more working capital, raise the meeting fees
to obtain it). However, from the discussion, I gather that at least some
participants have something else in mind -- a sort of "ISOC dowry"
provided upon conclusion of the arrangement. This seems like something
that both parties need to be clear about, and agree to.
Yes. I have a feeling that even with the BCP approved by the IESG
and by an ISOC Board motion, we would still need a piece of paper with
ink signatures - it might only say that the IETF and ISOC agree to the
terms of the BCP - it might also contain termination clauses about
money and IPR, if the termination clauses aren't in the BCP. In any
case it would be very short.
my lawyer-paranoia may get the better of me, but.... if the IETF remains a
legal "null", I have to wonder what my signature on a piece of paper means,
or could be made to mean..... I've passed this to Jorge (lawyer) for an
opinion.
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf