Subject: Adminrest: section 5

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 23:23:22 -0500 (EST)

section 5 starts out saying 
   The IASA manages money from three sources:
   
   1.  IETF meeting revenues.
   
   2.  Designated donations to ISOC (both monetary and in-kind).
   
   3.  Other ISOC support.

then goes on to say
   Note that the goal is to achieve and maintain a viable IETF support
   function based on meeting fees and designated donations.

I see no reason whatsoever to eliminate the other ISOC support 
from the second text - what benefit can flow from limiting the
way that the ISOC raises IETF support? - the first part of section 5 is
fine - do not negate the flexability in the second part

Scott

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

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 11:31:10 +0100

I don't think there is any principle in 2.2 that forms a basis for saying 
that we need to aim towards limiting IETF support to meeting fees and 
designated donations.

The situation we have now is (I think) that a lot of people support ISOC 
because they want to support the IETF, but do not require that ISOC account 
for their contribution separately - perhaps because they trust ISOC to do 
the Right Thing, because they've looked at the numbers and figure that IETF 
support is ISOC's major activity anyway, or because they think that ISOC's 
other activities are "somewhat valuable", and don't mind some of their 
money going in that direction, as long as IETF gets the support it needs.

I don't see a particular benefit in aiming for not allowing such "I support 
the IETF and the other stuff too" donations to contribute to the IETF.

Suggested edit: Change

> function based on meeting fees and designated donations. The IETF
> community expects the IAOC and ISOC to work together to attain that goal,
> and recognizes that doing so will require striking some sort of balance.

to

> function based on avaiable funding sources. The IETF
> community expects the IAOC and ISOC to work together to attain that goal,
> and recognizes that doing so will require striking some sort of balance.

(I thought about making that "stable funding sources" - but neither meeting 
fees nor donations really qualify as "stable"..... so I didn't).

(note: this is my opinion on the matter - if I later want to say that I 
have detected consensus on this point, I'll say so.)

            Harald

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 07:17:38 -0500 (EST)

Harald suggests
  Suggested edit: Change

  to
  
  > and recognizes that doing so will require striking some sort of balance.

works for me

Scott

---

From: "Lynn St.Amour" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 18:06:55 +0200

Harald, Scott,

This is much better and gives a good degree of flexibility.

Regards,

Lynn

At 11:31 AM +0100 12/2/04, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>I don't think there is any principle in 2.2 that forms a basis for 
>saying that we need to aim towards limiting IETF support to meeting 
>fees and designated donations.

<snip>

---

From: Carl Malamud <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 11:44:48 -0800 (PST)

Works for me to.