Subject: Issue #740: Section 2.2 & 5.6 - IASA BCP -02 Reserves [was RE: I ASA BCP -02 Reserves - section 2.2 /7 and 5.6]

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 16:56:34 +0100

Lynn,
Inline

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> Lynn St.Amour
> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 01:45
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: IASA BCP -02 Reserves - section 2.2 /7 and 5.6
> 
> 
> Bert, Rob,
> 
> please find below comments on "reserves".  Thanks again for 
> all your efforts.
> 
> 
> >Section 2.2
> >
> >7.   The IASA shall
> 
> work with ISOC to (?)
> 

Mmm... it seems to me that the IASA should establish a target.
Having said that, I could live with the addition.

I agree that IASA and ISOC together need to work on a plan to 
actually build the reserve. That is actually stated later on in the 
sentence.

> >establish a target for a reserve  fund to cover normal operating 
> >expenses and  meeting expenses in accordance with prudent  planning, 
> >and ISOC shall work with the IASA  to build up and maintain the
> 
> s/reserve./reserve as part of ISOC's overall reserve strategy and 
> provisioning./
> 
> The changes above are to reflect the last known agreement (at least 
> from ISOC's perspective it was the last known :-) .  Some additional 
> comments below.
> 

Lynn, since this is a "principle", I would rather see harald declare
consensus on it first. I think you are right, in that we do have
similar text in sect 5.6 but I am still not sure it is just an
editorial change that I can just make.

Harald?

> >5.6 Operating Reserve
> >
> >  As an initial guideline and in normal operating circumstances, the 
> >IASA should  have an operating reserve for its activities 
> >sufficient to cover 6-months of non-meeting  operational expenses, 
> >plus twice the recent  average for meeting contract guarantees. 
> >However, the IASA shall establish a target for a  reserve fund to 
> >cover normal operating expenses  and meeting expenses in accordance 
> >with prudent  planning.  Rather than having the IASA attempt to 
> >build that  reserve in its separate accounts,
> 
> I don't believe this sentence reads properly given we're following a 
> divisional accounting model (more appropriately called a cost center 
> model?) as the accounts will not be held physically separate. 

Not physical, I understand that.
But Sect 5.1 starts off to talk about "separate set of accounts".
And so this text in sect 5.6 just tries to be consistent with that.

W.r.t. the "divisional" vs "cost center" coounting....
We got the text on "Divisional Accounting" and on "sepearet set of
accounts" from Glenn Ricart, so what should it be. If we do make a
change we need to make it consistent over the whole doc.
Probably best to keep that for working out when we sit down with the
accountants?

> Perhaps delete that part and begin the sentence with: "the IASA looks 
> to ISOC to build ...." ?
> 
??

> >the IASA looks to  ISOC to build and provide that operational 
> >reserve, through whatever mechanisms ISOC deems  appropriate: line 
> >of credit, financial reserves,  meeting cancellation insurance, and 
> >so forth.  Such reserves do not appear instantaneously; the  goal is 
> >to reach this level of reserves within 3  years after the creation 
> >of the IASA. Such funds  shall be held in reserve for use by IASA 
> >for use  in the event of IETF meeting cancellation or other 
> >unexpected fiscal emergencies. These reserves shall  only be spent 
> >on IETF support functions.
> 
> The penultimate sentence above seems to be redundant, and in any case 
> the last two sentences are not in agreement with the earlier ones 
> that say it may be held as a line of credit, etc. nor with the notion 
> that the IASA would not be holding a separate reserve (2.2 - 7 seems 
> to imply the same thing?).   Finally, access to these reserves would 
> expect to follow normal IAOC and ISOC approval processes for any 
> budget overruns and would not automatically be available for use by 
> IASA in the event of meeting cancellations or other emergencies. 
> Maybe replace the last two sentences with some variation of "Access 
> to these reserves would expect to follow normal IAOC and ISOC 
> approval processes for any budget overruns."
> 

I believe that the current text was quite extensively discussed in the 
past. I am not sure I can just go ahaead and make changes based on
one person bringing it up. So I'd like to see more support on the list
first. 

Bert
> Best regards,
> Lynn
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 

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

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2004 08:44:35 -0500

Hi Bert,

>Probably best to keep that for working out when we sit down with the

When are you planning to sit down with the accountants?

The IETF LC for this document is scheduled to end in less than 2 
weeks, and this sentence implies (to me anyway) that we still haven't 
had it reviewed by the accountants?  Has it been reviewed by our 
lawyers?

Personally, I would like to see those reviews completed and any 
related changes made to the document well before the IETF LC ends.

>one person bringing it up. So I'd like to see more support on the list

I share Lynn's concerns about this paragraph, particularly the last 
sentence which is inconsistent with the descriptions of the reserve 
elsewhere in the document.

Margaret

---

From: "Lynn St.Amour" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:42:29 -0500

At 8:44 AM -0500 12/26/04, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>weeks, and this sentence implies (to me anyway) that we still 
>haven't had it reviewed by the accountants?  Has it been reviewed by 
>our lawyers?

It has been reviewed within ISOC by the accountants, and while this 
is obviously helpful, many of the items under discussion are business 
items and not Accounting issues per se.

Legal reviews are proving more difficult given the changing nature of 
the text and it's not clear to me that we will be able to complete 
this during the current last call timetable.

Regards,
Lynn