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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 15:06:27 +0100

In thinking about this, I think about the fungibility of funds.

By having a common account, cash flow issues that might be an issue at 
various points of the year can be dealt with more easily.  For example 
if funds are earmarked for meeting fees, but collections have not come 
in time for the year's first meeting, it is simpler to deal with when 
the funds come from a common account.

On the other hand, transparency requires the ability to inspect the 
accounts that are pertinent to the IETF, its budget vs it projected 
expenditure vs its actual expenditures.  This can, I believe, be 
adequately handled by so-called 'divisional accounting'.

a.

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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 10:38:30 +0100

> adequately handled by so-called 'divisional accounting'.

Exactly. I think the -01 draft has it right, except that I propose
adding a sentence at the end of paragraph 5 in section 2.2:

   All such funds and donations shall be irrevocably assigned to the IETF.

(Like my "irrevocable" for the intellectual property, this is
intended for the bolt-blowing situation.)

     Brian

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 08:55:19 -0500

Hi Brian,

At 10:38 AM +0100 12/3/04, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>  On the other hand, transparency requires the ability to inspect 
>>the accounts that are pertinent to the IETF, its budget vs it 
>>projected expenditure vs its actual expenditures.  This can, I 
>>believe, be adequately handled by so-called 'divisional accounting'.
>

Who are we trying to protect ourselves from?  And what does it mean 
for funds to be "irrevocably assigned to the IETF"?

While I agree that the IASA accounting needs to be transparent and 
understandable, I think that we should be cautious about making 
public, hard-to-change rules about our own accounting structures and 
fund transfers that may limit our flexibility and/or negatively 
impact the stability of the organization later.

Margaret

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 15:42:02 +0100

Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> Who are we trying to protect ourselves from?  And what does it mean for 
> funds to be "irrevocably assigned to the IETF"?
> 
> understandable, I think that we should be cautious about making public, 
> hard-to-change rules about our own accounting structures and fund 
> transfers that may limit our flexibility and/or negatively impact the 
> stability of the organization later.

People seem to be concerned about IETF having control of the assets
if we ever had to split off from ISOC. It was just intended to
address that concern with minimum verbiage. I don't think it constrains
cash flow arrangements.

    Brian

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 15:19:12 +0100

I am afraid this is meaningless unless this is insurred and warranted by a 
third party and the money in escrow, what a Bank is for. I am even afraid 
this is illegal wording in the way you intend it. Whatever the 
irrevocability ISOC may sign, ISOC is bound by legal and tax priority 
obligations. In all this, have the tax and insurance obligations, in 
international field, for both ISOC BoD and IETF interested people, have 
been considered?

What you ask the ISOC to be is to be the IETF's Bank.

At 10:38 03/12/2004, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>various points of the year can be dealt with more easily.  For example if 
>>funds are earmarked for meeting fees, but collections have not come in 
>>time for the year's first meeting, it is simpler to deal with when the 
>>funds come from a common account.

In other words this is money lending business. How do you see the 
profit/loss shared, reported and taxed?
Are payments accepted in different currencies? This currency exchange 
business. On a permanent basis.

>>adequately handled by so-called 'divisional accounting'.

This means that IETF is a Division of ISOC and ISOC is legally responsible 
for the consequences of the deeds of the IETF.

May I recall that IETF has no legal/tax representative but that ISOC has 
local incoporated chapters. Who is going to pay for their legal defense in 
the case someone sues one them as the local representative of their parent 
organization division?

As a local ISOC Member, I want a wording telling Judges that in no way, 
local ISOC Chapters can be taken as responsible for the consequences of the 
Internet documents publised by the ISOC IETF division. This will have 
probably no legal impact in case of an action against them as a local ISOC 
representative, but it will permit the ISOC chapters to be reimbursed by 
ISOC if they have been judged partly accountable for the result of using 
the ISOC's IETF department deliveries and of their public information.

jfc

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 22:47:11 +0100

Brian,

I don't think "irrevocably assigned to the IETF" works well for money.
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.

That should make it clear enough that the transfer of money into the IASA 
account is intended to be irrevocable.

Makes sense?

                 Harald