Subject: RE: AdminRest: IASA BCP: section 5 - IASA Funding

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 14:08:00 +0100

Scott, w.r.t. your rcomments on IASA Funding section.
I will be doing a separate posting with some questions,
but wanted to try and respond to your specific comments first,
see below.

> section 5
> 
> I'm not that sure that this document should be so specific as to say
> that the IAOC has a separate bank account - seems to me that the

well, that is how we tried to address the below principles.

> following principals need to be established
> 	1/ that all of the IETF-related funds have to be fully and
> 	   transparently accounted for

agreed

> 	2/ that the ISOC will ensure that there are adequate funds to
> 	   cover the budgeted activities of the IAOC when they are needed

I guess you mean IASA instead of IAOC
Other than that, agreed

> 	3/ the IAD (or another designated member of the IAOC in case of
> 	   the disability or unavailability of the IAD) has an ability to 
> 	   commit funds (e.g. direct that checks be cut and sent - that 
> 	   could be by giving the IAD the right to sign checks or just 
> 	   the authority to direct that checks be signed - I do not 
> 	   think there is a difference in day to day operation)
> 	
agreed.

I also believe that we (IETF) want to ensure that reserve funds get
build and that all the funds that have been alloocated to IASA/IETF
stay with IASA for IASA to use for IETF admin support functions.

> 
> section 5.1
>    All meeting revenues go into the IASA account.
> 
> note that there may be a startup phase where this is not the case
> because the existing systems will be in place until RFPs are created,
> responses evaluated, contractors hired and transition completed
> 

I agree that during startup things may be a bit different. But do we
have to describe transitional things in the BCP ?

It seems you agree we (IETF) need/want to have a special bank account
for collecting the meeting fees, do you? Not 100% clear to me if you do.

> section 5.2 
> why not just say that the ISOC should not accept any in-kind donations
> for the IETF without the prior OK of the IAD/IAOC?
> 
Is that just a matter of wording/clarity?
I assume you are speaking about the "usefulness" of in-kind donations, 
right?

> sec 5.3 pp1
> this is far to proscriptive - I do not think that the authors of this
> document or the general IETF community are accounts - lets 
> establish the
> requirement that funds be available when needed but not try to dictate
> the best way for that to be done - let the accountants figure that out 
> 
> a simple point is that the document asks for quarterly deposits for a
> process that has peak funding needs 3 times a year - that does not mesh
> 
Again, initially that may not mesh, but once we have reserve funds build 
up, then that should not be a problem from the IASA/IETF side, should it? 
Maybe it is a problem from ISOC side, that I do not yet know.

> I could easily see that it would be better to not have a separate
> account and just use ISOC's regular processes - I would rather this
> document not make an assumption on what the ISOC external accountants
> might recommend (or insist on) for this sort of thing
> 

We'll need to check with them.

> sec 5.3 pp2
> see above - this should just fall under a general requirement that all
> ISOC funding etc related to the IETF (and IASA) must be fully and
> publicly accounted for - I see nothing special over insurance 
> - any more than I would see that such a requirement would not cover 
> office expenses if the IAD where to be located in an ISOC office
> (in the US or elsewhere) or cover any employee specific expenses like 
> health benefits
>  

May I assume that other responses have made it clear that we in principle
seme to agree and that the "insurance" thing is just an example?

> section 5.4
> 	I think this is almost right - I think it should say that the
> aim is for there to be 6 months of non-meeting expenses available for
> the IASA - I suggest this because it does not limit how the reserve
> could be provided (maybe as part of a general ISOC line of credit, or
> immediately available investment account)
> 

Others have suggested that we must have the reserves in an IASA account
as well. Not sure we have consensus yet on what we (IETF) want/need.

Bert

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: [email-masked] (scott bradner)
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:30:28 -0500 (EST)

> Is that just a matter of wording/clarity?

no - I do not think its a matter of wording - the way its currently
worded the ISOC could accept anything it wanted and call it in knond
donations - I'd like the IAD/IAOC to be in the lopop for all such
donations

> I assume you are speaking about the "usefulness" of in-kind donations, 

more to who might consider someting useful - it should be the IETF folk
not the ISOC folk on their own

> have to describe transitional things in the BCP ?

it might be useful to say that there is a startup phase where things
will not all be done the way that the BCP describes it

> for collecting the meeting fees, do you? Not 100% clear to me if you

I thought I was quite clear that I think the question of a seperate
bank account to be an implementation detail that should be left to 
the folk directly involved and not preordaned as the only true way in
this document  I thought that carl suggesed a reasonable sent of
words to address this 

> Maybe it is a problem from ISOC side, that I do not yet know.

just like the above - preordaining anything this specific seems very
silly (and this a particularrly silly example - if you feel that 
the IETF MUST (for some reason of assumed control) distate the
frequency of ISOC deposits whty not at least say that the period
should bee the same as the need for funds? ) - again I'd rather leave
this to the people on the line with the IETF establishing WHAT we
want but not presuming to know HOW that is best ensured 

to me anything this detail just means that it will have to be revised in
short order when the specific details prove to be a non-optimal way to
proceed - use Carl's words to establish the principal that everyone
will agree to and let the details of how to implement the principal
to the people who will be responsibe for the day to day execution

> seme to agree and that the "insurance" thing is just an example?

but you missed the basic point of what I tried to say
which is that ALL IETF-specific expendatures needed to be carefully
accounted for - there is no reason to say anyting one way or the other
about any specific example (including insurance) - Carl's words
addressed this as well

> as well. Not sure we have consensus yet on what we (IETF) want/need.

even if that is the least reasonable way to proceed (for example having
funds just sitting in a seperate ank account is not a good way
to protect against inflation)? - 

high order bit for many of my comments - I think the authors of this
document are confusing detail with principal - I do not think that 
specifying a lot of detail (much of which may turn out to be 
not the right way to do things) just to make it look like the IETF 
is commanding the situation is a useful way to proceed - I think
its far more important to be VERY clear what the aim of specifying the 
details is - for example,  just what is the purpose of sayting
that there needs to be a seperate bank account?  just insisting that 
there be one without saying what the purpose is will just be confusing 
later on - the seperate bank account must be symbolic of someting - if
so then just say what its a symbol of and lets figure out the best way
to meet the requirement (I can not imagine that the REQUIREMENT is a
seperate bank account - the requirement could be the ability for the
IETF to have a clean break later in life or someting else - but don't
make people try to guess why the rules you put in the doc are in the doc
just tell the reader directly) - btw - a seperate bank account but still 
under the legal umbrella of the ISOC may be much more of a symbol than 
anything real in a legal sense

Scott