John C Klensin wrote:
Bert,
I'm trying to catch up on all of this after nearly two weeks in
which it was impossible to track these various threads. Now it
is merely a hard untangling process.
If you are going to use words equivalent to "irrevocable", in
either this context, the ISOC payment one noted by Bernard, or
elsewhere, the BCP must contain a plan about what happens if the
IETF fizzles out with even a trivial balance left in IASC or
IETF-designated funds.
I'm not convinced. If we were writing corporate bylaws that
would be true. But we aren't, so I would leave it open
(the ISOC Articles of Incorporation do limit what would
be possible).
Brian
See the more extended discussion just posted to the "RE:
iasa-bcp-01 - Open Issues - Separate bank accounts" thread.
john
--On Thursday, 09 December, 2004 14:24 +0100 "Wijnen, Bert
(Bert)" <bwijnen(_at_)lucent(_dot_)com> wrote:
Since I have seen quite a few agreement postings to below
posting of Harald, I have made the change as suggested by
Harald (in my working copy that is).
Bert
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]On
Behalf Of Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 17:11
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Consensus? Separate bank account
After all this threading, it seems clear that it would be bad
to send out
the Last Call today as planned without settling this issue.
(Not to mention that the secretariat still hasn't posted
version -02)
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf