--On Wednesday, 08 December, 2004 14:21 +0100 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On 8. desember 2004 14:00 +0100 Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about
Once funds or in-kind donations have been credited to the
IETF accounts, they shall be
Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
I don't think irrevocably assigned to the IETF works
well for money.
I actually also have kept that sentence in the principles,
namely at principle 5. It does not read so bad.
This is what it sais in my working copy:
my co-editor Rob did not think the reading was
--On onsdag, desember 08, 2004 09:56:15 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
I don't think irrevocably assigned to the IETF works
well for money.
I actually also have kept that sentence in the principles,
namely at principle 5. It does not read so bad.
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On onsdag, desember 08, 2004 09:56:15 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
I don't think irrevocably assigned to the IETF works
well for money.
I actually also have kept that sentence in the principles,
namely at principle
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 mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
While I agree that it is a question for lawyers, I think that are in
the permanent posession, until it is decided that funds will be spent
is a better way to put it.
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
At 10:20 AM +0100 12/8/04, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Donations to the IETF shall be irrevocably committed to the support
of the IETF.
There are already laws about designated/earmarked donations that make
this true.
I think that the point that Brian was trying to make is that the
meeting
Bert suggests:
Once funds or in-kind donations have been credited to the IETF accounts,
they shall be irrevocably allocated to the support of the IETF.
I'd rather Harald's suggestion
Donations to the IETF shall be irrevocably committed to the support of
the IETF.
its cleaner and
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
At 10:20 AM +0100 12/8/04, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Donations to the IETF shall be irrevocably committed to the support
of the IETF.
There are already laws about designated/earmarked donations that make
this true.
I think that the point that Brian was trying to
On 8 dec 2004, at 10.20, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Donations to the IETF shall be irrevocably committed to the support
of the IETF.
I am not sure I understand what it means. i.e. are you trying to say
that
donations to the IETF are to be allocated to the IETF's budget and may
not be
Hi Brian,
At 2:26 PM +0100 12/8/04, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
What we're really trying to say is ISOC can't take (or take back) any
money or in-kind donation that has been logged in as an IETF asset.
How that is said is really a question for the legal adviser, I think.
I don't think that there is
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 08:19:16AM -0500, Margaret Wasserman allegedly wrote:
The IETF meeting fees and IASA/IETF-designated donations will only be
used to support IASA and the IETF. If the total of these funding
sources is larger than the total cost of the IASA function, the
surplus will be
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 08:40
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand; Wijnen, Bert (Bert); [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: iasa-bcp-01 - Open Issues - Separate bank accounts
Hi Brian,
At 2:26 PM +0100 12/8/04, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
What we're
Scott W Brim wrote:
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 08:19:16AM -0500, Margaret Wasserman allegedly wrote:
The IETF meeting fees and IASA/IETF-designated donations will only be
used to support IASA and the IETF. If the total of these funding
sources is larger than the total cost of the IASA function, the
This is OK, but if I was still on the ISOC Board I might have some
questions about the last sentence. s/expect/hope/ perhaps.
This makes sense, particularly in light of my belief that the IETF
should ask ISOC for its support, not presume it.
Margaret
--On onsdag, desember 08, 2004 10:23:33 -0500 Margaret Wasserman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is OK, but if I was still on the ISOC Board I might have some
questions about the last sentence. s/expect/hope/ perhaps.
This makes sense, particularly in light of my belief that the IETF should
ask
--On onsdag, desember 08, 2004 14:28:32 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8 dec 2004, at 10.20, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Donations to the IETF shall be irrevocably committed to the support
of the IETF.
I am not sure I understand what it means. i.e. are you trying to say that
donations to
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On onsdag, desember 08, 2004 10:23:33 -0500 Margaret Wasserman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is OK, but if I was still on the ISOC Board I might have some
questions about the last sentence. s/expect/hope/ perhaps.
This makes sense, particularly in light of my
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
--On 8. desember 2004 14:00 +0100 Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
That one seems sensible to me. And is completely consistent with
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
Geoff responded to Leslie
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
At this point, I think I am confused. I have paged back through
the e-mail thread, and attempted to see whether my version would
or would not, should or should not, include meeting fees, and
have not been able to put together an authoritative picture...
I think I want to see what you think the
Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
Iresponded to Harald:
Harald writes:
Brian,
I don't think irrevocably assigned to the IETF works well for money.
I actually also have kept that sentence in the principles, namely at principle
5.
It does not read so bad. This is what it sais in my working copy:
Harald writes:
Brian,
I don't think irrevocably assigned to the IETF works well for money.
In all other cases, money going to support the IETF is called
credited to the IASA account.
In section 5, section 5.2 and 5.3 talk about money credited to the IASA
account. I'd rather add a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In thinking about this, I think about the fungibility of funds.
By having a common account, cash flow issues that might be an issue at
various points of the year can be dealt with more easily. For example
if funds are earmarked for meeting fees, but collections have not
Hi Brian,
At 10:38 AM +0100 12/3/04, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On the other hand, transparency requires the ability to inspect
the accounts that are pertinent to the IETF, its budget vs it
projected expenditure vs its actual expenditures. This can, I
believe, be adequately handled by so-called
I am afraid this is meaningless unless this is insurred and warranted by a
third party and the money in escrow, what a Bank is for. I am even afraid
this is illegal wording in the way you intend it. Whatever the
irrevocability ISOC may sign, ISOC is bound by legal and tax priority
obligations.
In thinking about this, I think about the fungibility of funds.
By having a common account, cash flow issues that might be an issue at
various points of the year can be dealt with more easily. For example
if funds are earmarked for meeting fees, but collections have not come
in time for the
29 matches
Mail list logo
