> 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@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf