Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On onsdag, desember 08, 2004 09:56:15 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
<brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com> wrote:
Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
I don't think "irrevocably assigned to the IETF" works
well for money.
I actually also have kept that sentence in the principles,
namely at principle 5. It does not read so bad.
This is what it sais in my working copy:
my co-editor Rob did not think the reading was really good either,
so when we checked again, we took the sentence out.
SO in revision 02 that we posted later last night (early this morning)
it is gone. If you want it back, pls re-raise/open the issue.
I do want it back. Of course the exact words don't matter, but I
think that Principle 5 in Section 2.2 needs to be explicit that
the funds belong to the IETF whatever happens. For example:
All such funds and donations shall belong irrevocably
to the IETF.
I can't personally see a better word than "irrevocably," but it
is really a lawyer/accountant question how to phrase it.
I actually think a lawyer/accountant would have more trouble with the
word "belong" - since the IETF is STILL not an entity capable of
claiming ownership, I think you need to do something like this:
"Donations to the IETF shall be irrevocably committed to the support of
the IETF".
Does that make sense? (I'm not sure it does - any simple formulation I
make up on the spot either makes it so that meeting fees fall outside or
that ISOC funding promises are also "irrevocable", making the
within-year budget adjustments allowed for later violate the principle.
My inability to formulate the principle right doesn't mean that the
principle is invalid, however...)
Indeed :-)
We agree, I think. Your phrase is OK for me.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf