Subject: AdminRest: IASA BCP: do we need dedicated IASA (bank) accounts

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 14:15:21 +0100

In revision draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-00.txt we have text in sections
5 through 5.4 about IASA funding and where the money needs to
be kept. Specifically, the current text suggests that there
is/are one or more IASA specific bank accounts. Namely:

 - Sect 5.1 says that meeting revenues go into IASA account.
   When I wrote that text I meant "IASA bank account", so if that
   is what we (IETF) want, then needs to be made more explicit.

 - Sect 5.2 says that designated monitary donations go to the IASA
   account.
   Again, I meant to write "IASA bank account". So need clarification
   if that is what we (IETF) want.

 - Sect 5.3 I think (I/we) intended (but is not explicit) to also
   have the quarterly deposits go into IASA bank account. So again
   needs clarification if that is what we (IETF) want.

 - Sect 5.4 talks about reserve fund being kept in reserve for use 
   by IASA. It is not specific how this is done. Current text leaves
   that up to ISOC to decide/arrange.

We have seen a few people raise concern about the above.
Concerns that I have seen raised and to which I would like to see
the IETF community speak their preference:

  - should we (IETF) indeed have/request an IASA specific bank account
    for collecting meeting fees?

  - should we (IETF) indeed have/request an IASA specific bank account
    for depositing designated monetary donations?

  - should we (IETF) indeed have/request an IASA specific bank account
    for depositing ISOC controbutions to the IASA (as budgeted)?

  - if yes to previosu question, should we (IETF) be so prescriptive
    in sect 5.3 about when ISOC puts money in an IASA (bank) account
    (e.g. quarterly and in equal portions) ?

  - should we (IETF) request/require that the reserve fund is kept
    in an IASA specific bank account.

Bert

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

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:17:15 -0500

Bert,

I think there are two key principles here, both of which I think 
the community has reached some consensus about.  If they are 
applied, I think they answer your questions.

    Principle 1: The IETF intends to establish a structure to
    get these administrative mechanisms and principles managed
    appropriately, according to good administrative, fiscal, and
    management principles, but not to try to micromanage the
    details.  To repeat what many people have said in different
    ways, most of the IETF participants lack the interest and/or
    skills to properly micromanage this sort of effort, even if
    such micromanagement were appropriate.

    Principle 2: The BCP document --perhaps as distinct from any
    transition ones-- should avoid extremely fine details to the
    extent possible, if only because revising such documents to
    make changes that become necessary takes too much community
    energy that ought to be going into better and faster
    standards and engineering work.

If we accept those principles, then getting the community, and 
the proposed BCP, involved with questions of how bank accounts 
are organized is as inappropriate as designating:

    * the type of account to be used

    * the currency in which the accounts are to be kept

    * the country in which the banks are to be located

    * the specific accounting models and standards to be used.

each of which is a subject that might be more important than how 
a bank account is designated.

What the BCP should say, IMO, is that IETF funds should be 
appropriately designated and segregated according to generally 
accepted accounting practices (that, for those who don't know, 
is a fairly specific term of art).  Issues such as the above 
(including labels on bank accounts) should be left to 
professionals who can, e.g., consider what sorts of arrangements 
will provide the best balance between safety of funds and rate 
of return on investment (assuming that we do not want to leave 
those funds under a mattress somewhere).  Our job, and that of 
the transition team and IAOC, should be to be sure that we have 
the right models for getting and following appropriate 
professional advice in these areas, not constraining those 
decisions with details about bank accounts.  Especially for the 
"reserve" funds or any accumulating endowment, bank accounts 
might not even be the right model.

    john

--On Friday, November 26, 2004 2:15 PM +0100 "Wijnen, Bert 
(Bert)" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>    When I wrote that text I meant "IASA bank account", so if
> that    is what we (IETF) want, then needs to be made more
> explicit.
>
>  - Sect 5.2 says that designated monitary donations go to the
> IASA    account.
>    Again, I meant to write "IASA bank account". So need
> clarification    if that is what we (IETF) want.
>
>  - Sect 5.3 I think (I/we) intended (but is not explicit) to
> also    have the quarterly deposits go into IASA bank account.
> So again    needs clarification if that is what we (IETF) want.
>
>  - Sect 5.4 talks about reserve fund being kept in reserve for
> use     by IASA. It is not specific how this is done. Current
> text leaves    that up to ISOC to decide/arrange.
>
> Concerns that I have seen raised and to which I would like to
> see the IETF community speak their preference:
>
>   - should we (IETF) indeed have/request an IASA specific bank
> account     for collecting meeting fees?
>
>   - should we (IETF) indeed have/request an IASA specific bank
> account     for depositing designated monetary donations?
>
>   - should we (IETF) indeed have/request an IASA specific bank
> account     for depositing ISOC controbutions to the IASA (as
> budgeted)?
>
>   - if yes to previosu question, should we (IETF) be so
> prescriptive     in sect 5.3 about when ISOC puts money in an
> IASA (bank) account     (e.g. quarterly and in equal portions)
> ?
>
>   - should we (IETF) request/require that the reserve fund is
> kept     in an IASA specific bank account.
>
> Bert
>

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:54:33 +1100

>     for collecting meeting fees?

yes

>     for depositing designated monetary donations?

yes

>     for depositing ISOC controbutions to the IASA (as budgeted)?

yes

>     (e.g. quarterly and in equal portions) ?

yes

>     in an IASA specific bank account.

yes

I'll head into reasons if so requested, but as you've asked for 
preferences, I've provided them

   Geoff

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:58:37 +0100

Geoff Huston wrote:
>>   - should we (IETF) indeed have/request an IASA specific bank account...

No, in all cases. I think that an internal account within ISOC's
accounting system is necessary and sufficient. Although I am keen
that ISOC should not use IETF cash to solve hypothetical future
cash flow problems, I think it would be self-inflicted pain to operate
legally separate bank accounts. But in the end it's an accounting
detail that we probably shouldn't even specify in the BCP.

    Brian

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 21:20:49 +0100

Sorry, in this I must disagree. We are in an international situation and we 
want simple to read for everyone, crystal clear statements in due time by 
third party. The only certified situation reports we have in case of 
conflict is a neat banking monthly statement.

Another complex issue where an ISOC account would actually _cost_ is 
currency management as a substantial amount of the IETF resources is 
probably wasted in USD conversion by non American Members. The IETF banking 
account should be opened in a country supporting multicurrency accounts to 
benefit from lowest conversion costs. Why to waste money in converting and 
keeping euro as dollars?
jfc