Re: Scenario C prerequisites (Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on where

kaih@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) Wed, 29 September 2004 22:49 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA27664; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 18:49:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CCnOp-00053D-2K; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 18:58:16 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CCmiR-0004xb-Ty; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 18:14:27 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CCmX4-0001CP-Gs for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 18:02:42 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA21502 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 18:02:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from colo.khms.westfalen.de ([213.239.196.208] ident=Debian-exim) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CCmfA-0003cW-WD for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 18:11:06 -0400
Received: from khms.vpn ([10.172.192.2]:54489 helo=khms.westfalen.de) by colo.khms.westfalen.de with asmtp (TLS-1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA:16) (Exim 4.34) id 1CCmU5-00062a-G9 for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 23:59:38 +0200
Received: from root (helo=khms.westfalen.de) by khms.westfalen.de with local-bsmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CCmTv-0007iw-Qy for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 23:59:27 +0200
Received: by khms.westfalen.de (CrossPoint v3.12d.kh14 R/C435); 29 Sep 2004 23:47:26 +0200
Date: 29 Sep 2004 23:04:00 +0200
From: kaih@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen)
To: ietf@ietf.org
Message-ID: <9HoYk63mw-B@khms.westfalen.de>
In-Reply-To: <1207701419.20040922172208@gainesgroup.com>
X-Mailer: CrossPoint v3.12d.kh14 R/C435
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Organisation? Me?! Are you kidding?
References: <20040922003307.783E1A569C@newdev.harvard.edu> <530800000.1095864601@minbar.fac.cs.cmu.edu> <Pine.LNX.4.60.0409220901030.29741@npax.cavebear.com> <Pine.LNX.4.60.0409220901030.29741@npax.cavebear.com> <1207701419.20040922172208@gainesgroup.c
X-No-Junk-Mail: I do not want to get *any* junk mail.
Comment: Unsolicited commercial mail will incur an US$100 handling fee per received mail.
X-Fix-Your-Modem: +++ATS2=255&WO1
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007
Subject: Re: Scenario C prerequisites (Re: Upcoming: further thoughts on where
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d

gene.gaines@gainesgroup.com (Gene Gaines)  wrote on 22.09.04 in <1207701419.20040922172208@gainesgroup.com>om>:

> It appears to me that IETF qualifies for this status easily as

But we're not interested in this status for the IETF.

We don't want to incorporate the IETF.

What is under discussion is incorporating a separate organization whose  
mission is supporting the IETF.

> a technical, memberhhip organization, not operated for private

Neither the IETF, nor this possible new organization, has any (formal)  
membership.

> I spoke briefly with a U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) expert
> who told me informally that IETF appears to qualify easily for
> non-profit, tax-exempt status.

Well, given how far your model seems from the one discussed here, that  
seens worth nothing whatsoever.

MfG Kai

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf