At 2:41 PM +0100 12/13/04, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Scott Bradner wrote: I've gone various ways on this, but I think that imposing a duty of regular payment on ISOC is appropriate - so that paying the IETF late doesn't become a tempting cash-flow management tool. I would be happy with a phrasing that asks for at least 3 payments per year.
Instead of specifying a number of "payments" per year perhaps we could say something like: "ISOC will credit additional funds to the IASA accounts, as necessary to cover the approved budget."?
Elsewhere it says that meeting fees and designated donations will be credited to the IASA account when they are received, so it seem as though these additional "payments" (credits?) would only be necessary if the IASA budget for the given period has not been covered by meeting fees and designated donations. Right?
Margaret
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf