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. 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@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx]On >> Behalf Of Harald Tveit Alvestrand >> Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 17:11 >> To: ietf@xxxxxxxx >> 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@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf