Margaret Wasserman wrote:
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
this true.
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.
and
(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 designated funds.
What we're really trying to say is ISOC can't take (or take back) any
money or in-kind donation that has been logged in as an IETF asset.
How that is said is really a question for the legal adviser, I think.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf