Replying in-line to both Scott and Brian.
At 9:58 AM +0100 11/19/04, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
scott bradner wrote:
fwiw - its my opinion that we should fins out if someting makes legal or accounting sense before deciding to take that path
For sure. That has applied to all our process BCPs in the past, for good reason. I assume that once this discussion converges, the lawyers and accountants will be asked to review the draft.
The critical point, though, is that the community needs to converge on what it wants to happen *before* this document is called done. I'm very concerned by the idea that we should say that something so fundamental to organizational relations as the basic money flow would be decided after the fact. Leaving that fuzzy in the documents means that the we are liable to misinterpretation later when the cast of characters changes or the circumstances change. Later disagreements on that won't help ISOC and they won't help the IETF; to avoid them, these things have to be part of the structure described *in the documents*, not the lore surrounding them.
Again, I don't mean "name the auditing team" in the document; I mean the far more fundamental questions of how money comes in, who decides how to spend it, and what happens when the money coming in doesn't match the needs (either in shortfall or surplus).
And let's face facts, guys, we did not choose an organizational form in which this is clear cut. Had the IETF decided to merge fully with ISOC, this would be clear; had the IETF decided to stand up a fully fledged organization, this would be clear. But we've chosen a form in which ISOC nurtures an organization that is responsible for the administrative support of the IETF while the IETF organization itself remains separate and loosely structured. To make sure that works right over a long time period, we're going to have to be very clear about our expectations. If they change, we can change the documents, but starting with them fuzzy is just the wrong mistake.
In my more folksy moments, I have said that we're aiming for a situation in which the "IETF's administration is under ISOC's wing" rather than one in which the "IETF is a wing of ISOC". That resonates reasonably well for those I've talked to, as it captures both the fact that they are independent but closely related and that ISOC is taking on a custodial role for the administrative function. But this is not exactly something we can hang a document on; we need to spell out what we expect to happen. If we don't do that, we've just handed the headache on. That's not what any of us wants. regards, Ted Hardie
I tend to think we should be reasonably prescriptive, but should include a disclaimer that the IAOC is authorized to vary the procedures for legal, accounting or practical reasons as long as it reports the variance to the community and triggers an update of the BCP.
Brian
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf