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 mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality:
Yours to discover."
-- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
