> >> 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. > How about Once funds or in-kind donations have been credited to the IETF accounts, they shall be irrevocably allocated to the support of the IETF. Bert > Brian > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf