I think you are wanting to say that "donation of funds to the IETF be
placed under the exclusive control of the IETF support program within
ISOC". This phrasing is slightly stronger than the irrevocable commitment
phrase, but does fall just short of explicitly stating 'distinct fund
account held in a financial institution'.
And indeed: Beyond that: get a lawyer or accountant to figure it out!
Geoff
At 06:57 AM 9/12/2004, Leslie Daigle wrote:
Doesn't work for me -- who defines what is "supportive"? In
the context of moving forward with the BCP and working with
ISOC, it's obviously clear. But, to the extent that the
text is meant ot address the case that the ISOC-IASA
relationship is changing, we should not leave it until
then to have the discussion about who calls the shots
on "supporting".
Maybe, minimally:
Donations to the IETF shall be irrevocably committed to the support of
the IETF, by the mechanism defined by IETF consensus process.
(I don't think that's quite it... but perhaps a start).
Beyond that: get a lawyer or accountant to figure it out!
Leslie.
Scott Bradner wrote:
Harald asks:
"Donations to the IETF shall be irrevocably committed to the support of
the IETF".
Does that make sense?
works for me
Scott
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality:
Yours to discover."
-- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
leslie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf