Subject: draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-02: section 5.4 - oher ISOC support

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 20:57:11 -0500 (EST)

open from last version

> 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

I did not see anyone speak up in favor of mandating quarterly deposits
for an effort that not a quarterly effort yet this sillyness is still
in the document

Scott

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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 14:41:33 +0100

> for an effort that not a quarterly effort yet this sillyness is still

I've gone various ways on this, but I think that imposing a duty of
regular payment on ISOC is appropriate - so that paying the IETF
late doesn't become a tempting cash-flow management tool. I would
be happy with a phrasing that asks for at least 3 payments per
year.

     Brian

---

From: "Lynn St.Amour" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:23:01 +0100

>be happy with a phrasing that asks for at least 3 payments per

Brian,

what can we pay late?  We have to pay salaries, RFC Editor, meeting 
contracts, outsourcing contracts, insurance, etc.  on time.  This 
makes it sound like a deposit model rather than paying for expenses?

Lynn

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 09:25:44 -0500

>be happy with a phrasing that asks for at least 3 payments per

Instead of specifying a number of "payments" per year perhaps we 
could say something like:  "ISOC will credit additional funds to the 
IASA accounts, as necessary to cover the approved budget."?

Elsewhere it says that  meeting fees and designated donations will be 
credited to the IASA account when they are received, so it seem as 
though these additional  "payments" (credits?) would only be 
necessary if the IASA budget for the given period has not been 
covered by meeting fees and designated donations.  Right?

Margaret

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 20:22:43 +0100

> be happy with a phrasing that asks for at least 3 payments per

I'd suggest some variant of "as budgeted".

                   Harald

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 14:23:12 +0100

Lynn St.Amour wrote:
> contracts, outsourcing contracts, insurance, etc.  on time.  This makes 
> it sound like a deposit model rather than paying for expenses?

Well, I actually don't know - I am thinking in the abstract about
what might go wrong at some unknown point in the future.

    Brian