Thanks for the followup, Fred!
I think the number of changes in chapter 5 reflects quite a bit of uncertainty about what it should say... we (the IETF community, with ISOC) should work together on this to make sure it says neither too much nor too little.....
Some specifc points (my opinions):
--On 17. november 2004 16:55 -0800 Fred Baker <fred@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
A question for those maintaining the document?
There is a fair bit of change in section five, regarding IASA funding. In a nutshell, it now says:
- IETF has three revenue streams: * IETF meeting fees * Donations of various kinds designated to the IETF * ISOC funding derived from other sources - the first two get deposited in the IASA checkbook - the third gets deposited in quarterly lump payments - there is an intent to have built up enough money for the IASA to run for six months without receiving a dime, over a period of three years.
[skipping description of how ISOC works]
A significant part of IETF expenses will be in deposits for future meetings. Generally, the most expensive way to plan and pay for an excursion in a hotel or conference center is "at the last minute". As a result, most organizations that plan conferences have deposits on hotels and such at least a year out. A quick look at http://www.icann.org/meetings/, for example, shows meetings paid for through next summer, and on in development in December 2005. When the document talks about a six-month reserve, I therefore have to ask: which six months of the year? Does this cover one planned meeting fee, or two? On an accrual basis, that's not much of an issue, but on a cash basis, it is a big one.
Actually the words are:
In normal operating circumstances, the IASA would look to 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.
This is 6 months of the expenses that occur throughout the year (assuming, probably too blitely, that they are reasonably smooth) + some funds that allow us to schedule at least two more meetings, beyond the ones already committed - or that's how I read it, which may not be the intent of the writers (I would think that one meeting's guarantees would be enough).
The effect of section 5, if I am reading it correctly, is to transfer these budgetary bumps and grinds to the IASA rather than allowing the ISOC to help out, making "oops, we're low on cash" something that has to be discussed as opposed to ISOC simply backstopping things as we have heretofore agreed. By treating them on a cash basis rather than an accrual basis, this section seems maximize the pain they cause.
I think we need to find a reasonable way to budget & expense stuff.... you sure make an accrual basis sound tempting, but we do have to have cash in hand too.
One thing that I heard people say in commenting on budgeting was that the IETF needs to show budgetary responsibility too - we can't ask for the sky, and say "it's ISOC's job to pay for it". The separation of accounts may also have been intended to show this - that the IETF, and IASA, has its own responsibility to behave responsibly wrt finances.
But there may be better ways to express this than overconstraining our structure...
I wonder whether the IETF would consider talking with ISOC's accounting office to normalize these issues now, and whether the problem really needs to be this tightly constrained?
I think this is a very valuable piece of advice. I know that I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to accounting methods....
I'd hoped that the transition team (once it's set up) could go into this - the IESG and IAB are hoping to finalize picking the transition team Monday of next week.
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf