Well, I'd like to suggest that we should decide not to decide
at this time. It is a low-level issue compared to getting the
BCP to a point of consensus and keeping to the schedule for
creating the IASA. As a survivor of many ISOC Board discussions
on such issues, I can tell you we aren't going to converge any
time soon - so could we agree to put it aside? That will mean
adding a few weasel words in the draft, but that's easy if
we agree to disagree, e.g.: "Accounting mechanisms for small designated
donations will be decided in the light of experience" instead
of the last sentence of 5.3 para 2.
Hi Brian -
I think you should do what it takes to get a consensus on the doc. :)
If that means dropping the language altogether and that makes people
happy, that's the answer. If it means leaving it in, but putting
in a clause that makes you happy, that works as well.
May I make a suggestion? Run the small donations program for 1 year
as an experiment (e.g., don't enshrine it as a dedicated principle),
charge any costs for administering that program back to the IASA
accounts, and then evaluate at the end of the year if it is a worthwhile
thing.
In terms of BCP language? Something like: "The IASA and ISOC
shall investigate concrete mechanisms that will allow small
contributions designated for use in the IASA and shall
report back periodically to the community on such matters."
(Or, any language that makes you, Lynn, Scott, Bert, Leslie, and
the others who spoke up on this issue happy. IMHO, this shouldn't
be a gating issue and folks seem pretty close to agreement.
It seems like people are simply arguing over the level at which
this mechanism might kick in ... US$1 is clearly too small,
US$1m is clearly large enough.)
A suggestion? Maybe Leslie and Lynn could talk and propose
something in this area? I'm sure I would immediately agree to
anything they proposed.
Regards,
Carl
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf