Subject: RE: iasa-bcp-01 - Open Issues - Separate bank accounts

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 13:53:56 +0100

> >>>I don't think "irrevocably assigned to the IETF" works 
> >>>well for money.
> > 
> > 
> > I actually also have kept that sentence in the principles, 
> > namely at principle 5. It does not read so bad.
> > This is what it sais in my working copy:
> >
my co-editor Rob did not think the reading was really good either,
so when we checked again, we took the sentence out.

SO in revision 02 that we posted later last night (early this morning)
it is gone. If you want it back, pls re-raise/open the issue.

Bert
> >                     <t>
> >                         There shall be a detailed public 
> accounting to
> >                         separately identify all funds 
> available to and
> >                         all expenditures relating to the IETF and to
> >                         the IASA, including any donations, 
> of funds or
> >                         in-kind, received by ISOC for IETF-related
> >                         activities.  In-kind donations shall only be
> >                         accepted at the direction of the 
> IAD and IAOC.
> >                         All such funds and donations shall 
> be irrevocably
> >                         assigned to the IETF.
> >                     </t>
> > 
> > Bert
> 
> Having it in the principles is the best solution.
> 
>      Brian
> 
> > 
> >>>In all other cases, money going to support the IETF is called 
> >>>"credited to the IASA account".
> >>>
> >>>In section 5, section 5.2 and 5.3 talk about money credited 
> >>
> >>to the IASA 
> >>
> >>>account. I'd rather add a section before section 5.5 that 
> >>
> >>simply says:
> >>
> >>> 5.x IASA expenses
> >>>
> >>> The IASA exists to support the IETF. Therefore, only 
> >>
> >>expenses related to
> >>
> >>> supporting the IETF can be debited to the IASA account.
> >>>
> >>
> >>I like it, so I have added it to my working copy of the document.
> >>
> >>Bert
> >>
> >>>That should make it clear enough that the transfer of money 
> >>>into the IASA account is intended to be irrevocable.
> >>>
> >>>Makes sense?
> >>>
> >>>                 Harald
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>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: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 09:56:15 +0100

> it is gone. If you want it back, pls re-raise/open the issue.

I do want it back. Of course the exact words don't matter, but I
think that Principle 5 in Section 2.2 needs to be explicit that
the funds belong to the IETF whatever happens. For example:

   All such funds and donations shall belong irrevocably
   to the IETF.

I can't personally see a better word than "irrevocably," but it
is really a lawyer/accountant question how to phrase it.

    Brian

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 10:20:57 +0100

> is really a lawyer/accountant question how to phrase it.

I actually think a lawyer/accountant would have more trouble with the word 
"belong" - since the IETF is STILL not an entity capable of claiming 
ownership, I think you need to do something like this:

"Donations to the IETF shall be irrevocably committed to the support of the 
IETF".

Does that make sense? (I'm not sure it does - any simple formulation I make 
up on the spot either makes it so that meeting fees fall outside or that 
ISOC funding promises are also "irrevocable", making the within-year budget 
adjustments allowed for later violate the principle. My inability to 
formulate the principle right doesn't mean that the principle is invalid, 
however...)

                   Harald

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 10:53:01 +0100

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> I actually think a lawyer/accountant would have more trouble with the 
> word "belong" - since the IETF is STILL not an entity capable of 
> claiming ownership, I think you need to do something like this:
> 
> "Donations to the IETF shall be irrevocably committed to the support of 
> the IETF".
> 
> Does that make sense? (I'm not sure it does - any simple formulation I 
> make up on the spot either makes it so that meeting fees fall outside or 
> that ISOC funding promises are also "irrevocable", making the 
> within-year budget adjustments allowed for later violate the principle. 
> My inability to formulate the principle right doesn't mean that the 
> principle is invalid, however...)
> 
Indeed :-)

We agree, I think. Your phrase is OK for me.

    Brian

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 08:19:16 -0500

At 10:20 AM +0100 12/8/04, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>"Donations to the IETF shall be irrevocably committed to the support 
>of the IETF".

There are already laws about designated/earmarked donations that make 
this true.

I think that the point that Brian was trying to make is that the 
meeting fees should also be committed to the support of the IETF.

The fact of the matter is that it is unlikely that the IETF will have 
a surplus generated by meeting fees and designated donations, so it 
is hard to get excited about this problem.  However, I do understand 
the point that  if we ever do have a surplus from these sources, we 
don't want ISOC to use that money for other nefarious purposes :-). 
I don't think that there is any real disagreement about this, but I 
do think that it is difficult to:

(1) Determine how much of this should be explained in the BCP.

and

(2) Figure out how to say it.

Maybe we could be more simple in our wording?  Something like:

The IETF meeting fees and IASA/IETF-designated donations will only be 
used to support IASA and the IETF.  If the total of these funding 
sources is larger than the total cost of the IASA function, the 
surplus will be held in the IASA account for later use to support 
IASA and the IETF.  If the total of these funding sources is smaller 
than the total cost of the IASA function, resulting in a deficit, we 
are expecting ISOC to cover that deficit from non-IASA/IETF 
designated funds.

Margaret

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 14:26:36 +0100

Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> I think that the point that Brian was trying to make is that the meeting 
> fees should also be committed to the support of the IETF.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that it is unlikely that the IETF will have a 
> surplus generated by meeting fees and designated donations, so it is 
> hard to get excited about this problem.  However, I do understand the 
> point that  if we ever do have a surplus from these sources, we don't 
> want ISOC to use that money for other nefarious purposes :-). I don't 
> think that there is any real disagreement about this, but I do think 
> that it is difficult to:
> 
> sources is larger than the total cost of the IASA function, the surplus 
> will be held in the IASA account for later use to support IASA and the 
> IETF.  If the total of these funding sources is smaller than the total 
> cost of the IASA function, resulting in a deficit, we are expecting ISOC 
> to cover that deficit from non-IASA/IETF designated funds.
> 

What we're really trying to say is ISOC can't take (or take back) any
money or in-kind donation that has been logged in as an IETF asset.
How that is said is really a question for the legal adviser, I think.

    Brian

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 14:28:32 +0100

> "Donations to the IETF shall be irrevocably committed to the support 

I am not sure I understand what it means.  i.e. are you trying to say 
that

  donations to the IETF are to be allocated to the IETF's budget and may 
not be reallocated to another budget?

or is there some other content?

a.

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 08:39:45 -0500

Hi Brian,

>How that is said is really a question for the legal adviser, I think.

I don't think that there is any major disagreement about this, 
either...  Well, except that there is no such thing as an "IETF 
asset", but that can be worked around with the wording that Harald 
suggested.

My concern is that we need to make sure that the BCP does not 
over-proscribe the financial arrangements, which can only lead to one 
of two things (1) reducing our nimbleness/flexibility, or (2) running 
into enough situations where the IAOC and ISOC ignore the BCP that it 
later comes to have no relevance to the actual financial structure.

I have been on the ISOC Board for about 1-1/2 years.  In that time, 
we done a number of things that don't easily fit into the model of 
strictly separate accounts with regular quarterly payments from ISOC 
to IASA:  (1) We've set aside substantial amounts of money that 
_might_ be spent on IETF-related activities in our budget without 
allocating them, (2) We've made unplanned allocations (from the funds 
we set aside) to cover IETF restructuring-related expenses, and (3) 
We've covered an unanticipated cost-overrun at the RFC editor.

These were all good things to do at the time, and I don't think that 
we want to set-up a budget structure that would stop us from doing 
similar things in the future.

Margaret

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 14:50:22 +0100

> are expecting ISOC to cover that deficit from non-IASA/IETF 

IMHO this is cleaner and makes the point completely.  The sentence about
irrevocable donations felt redundant and limited in what it covered.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 15:58:50 +0100

> irrevocable donations felt redundant and limited in what it covered.

This is OK, but if I was still on the ISOC Board I might have some
questions about the last sentence. s/expect/hope/ perhaps.

    Brian

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 10:23:33 -0500

>questions about the last sentence. s/expect/hope/ perhaps.

This makes sense, particularly in light of my belief that the IETF 
should ask ISOC for its support, not presume it.

Margaret

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 13:26:50 +0100

If we want to get WSIS support and subsequent R&D public fundings as RFC 
3869 calls for, we need a short and clear description, in the draft, of 
what is discussed today. A statement that everyone can understand, quote 
and consider as acceptable whatever the changes the Internet Governance may 
meet. I came with the following draft and tested it around (please do not 
consider the language but the ideas) :

"The internet is the adherence to the humanity common property made of the 
Internet documents published by the RFC Editor, of the common parameters 
made available on-line by the IANA and of the data and sources necessary to 
their management. Documents are authored by the IETF under the 
architectural guidance of the IAB and the long terms consideration of the 
IRTF, along an online and face to face process conducted by the IESG. The 
common administrative support [of these to be legally defined entities] is 
transparently carried by the IASA, a clerical funtion entrusted into ISOC. 
The online management of the IANA has been delegated to ICANN."

I note that this is a statement every Governement should accept. The 
reference to ICANN at the end of the text permits to link that paragraph 
with a second paragraph which would present the Intenet intergovernance as 
it will be recommended by the coming Tunis submit. Hammering this would 
probably be the best reponse to the currently developped idea of an 
industry/governement/users sponsored and maintained "Internet/NGN Reference 
Book and Sources" which would probably lead to several versions and to a 
balkanization of the Internet. We should remember that 99% of the decision 
makers influencing the Internet deployment totally ignore what is the 
Internet standard process. They are the target of such a reference statement.

This statement however needs a legal definition of the IETF. The only 
definition included in the draft is "The IETF is a consensus-based group, 
and authority to act on behalf of the community requires a high degree of 
consensus and the continued consent of the community". I would suggest to 
use an "open consortium of the voluntaries participating into the Internet 
standard process". This seems a fair description of the reality and gives a 
common sense framework, clearly defining how and why the "IETF" may receive 
monies and get them managed. I also understand that managing a "trust" is a 
well defined function which protects the rights and the property of the 
truster whatever happens while permitting the trustee to do what Margaret 
describes. In any case, everyone of non American legal culture will 
understand it the way you want the things to work - what will permit help 
donations decision.

The whole statement would then read :

"The internet is the adherence to the humanity common property made of the 
Internet documents published by the RFC Editor, of the common parameters 
made available on-line by the IANA and of the data and sources necessary to 
their management. Documents are authored by the IETF under the 
architectural guidance of the IAB and the long terms consideration of the 
IRTF, along an online and face to face process conducted by the IESG. The 
common administrative support of the open consortium of the voluntaires 
participating into this process is transparently carried by the IASA, a 
clerical funtion entrusted into ISOC. The online management of the IANA has 
been delegated to ICANN."

jfc

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 16:53:50 +0100

--On onsdag, desember 08, 2004 10:23:33 -0500 Margaret Wasserman 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> This makes sense, particularly in light of my belief that the IETF should
> ask ISOC for its support, not presume it.

I actually think the whole thread is very much congruent to what's 
specified in section 5 of iasa-bcp-02. Can the debaters please check that, 
and see if we still want more changes?

Remember - section 2.2 is (short) principles, section 5 is the (longer) 
description of how we plan to implement them; both are part of the BCP that 
we want to be committed to and change VERY rarely.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 16:54:57 +0100

--On onsdag, desember 08, 2004 14:28:32 +0100 [email-masked] wrote:

> I am not sure I understand what it means.  i.e. are you trying to say that
>

that's exactly what I wanted to say, and what -02 section 5.5 already says; 
I was trying to use the word "irrevocable" in there, and keep it short 
enough to put it in "principles".

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 17:00:49 +0100

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> specified in section 5 of iasa-bcp-02. Can the debaters please check 
> that, and see if we still want more changes?
> 
> description of how we plan to implement them; both are part of the BCP 
> that we want to be committed to and change VERY rarely.

This is a matter of principle I think - so I do see value in an explicit
sentence in 2.2.

    Brian

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 11:15:18 -0500

I must be missing something.  It seems to me that this BCP is for defining 
the administrative function and how that administrative function will 
interact with its parents (IETF and ISOC).

It does not seem to me that there is any reason to have, in this document, 
an attempted definition of the Internet.  Even the "definition" of the IETF 
in the document is primarily for context rather than as an effort to 
actually "define" the IETF.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 07:26 AM 12/8/2004, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
>and consider as acceptable whatever the changes the Internet Governance 
>may meet. I came with the following draft and tested it around (please do 
>not consider the language but the ideas) :
>
>made available on-line by the IANA and of the data and sources necessary 
>to their management. Documents are authored by the IETF under the 
>industry/governement/users sponsored and maintained "Internet/NGN 
>Reference Book and Sources" which would probably lead to several versions 
>and to a balkanization of the Internet. We should remember that 99% of the 
>decision makers influencing the Internet deployment totally ignore what is 
>the Internet standard process. They are the target of such a reference 
>statement.
>
>standard process". This seems a fair description of the reality and gives 
>a common sense framework, clearly defining how and why the "IETF" may 
>receive monies and get them managed. I also understand that managing a 
>"trust" is a well defined function which protects the rights and the 
>property of the truster whatever happens while permitting the trustee to 
>do what Margaret describes. In any case, everyone of non American legal 
>culture will understand it the way you want the things to work - what will 
>permit help donations decision.
>
>made available on-line by the IANA and of the data and sources necessary 
>to their management. Documents are authored by the IETF under the 
>clerical funtion entrusted into ISOC. The online management of the IANA 
>has been delegated to ICANN."
>
>jfc
>
>
>

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 23:01:07 +0100

--On onsdag, desember 08, 2004 13:26:50 +0100 "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> 3869 calls for...........

RFC 3869 does not talk about support for the IETF standards process, but 
for research on the Internet.

I think getting WSIS funding for the IETF standards process would be a Bad 
Idea.

                       Harald

---

From: "Randy.Dunlap" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 14:02:16 -0800

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

<hijacked>

Is there some web page(s) or drafts where I can read to try
to catch up on what this (these) discussions are all about,
regarding reorg., governance, supporting organizations, etc.?

Thanks.

-- 
~Randy

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 02:09:03 +0100

>I think getting WSIS funding for the IETF standards process would be a Bad 

Harald,
WSIS has no funds. It is a one shot specialized forum of the Govs the IAB 
wants moneyfrom. It has two main Internet issues: the Internet governance 
and the Internet funding.

Since Internet R&D and standard process are obviously related, I understand 
that you want only commercial interests to fund the IETF, and Govs to fund 
the development of what the IETF has independently decided? IMHO that 
option leads to a balkanization; all the more than the RFC 3869 does not 
consider the multilingual WSIS/Govs priority. I believe that the Internet 
standard process can address all what such a priority implies, and can 
contain the multilingual/multicultural risks of balkanization, but not 
under commercial fostering only.
jfc

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 10:54:19 +0100

At the moment, the best "overall" site is 
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/adminrest/ - the timeline has pointers to 
most of the important documents, I think.

               Harald