sob@xxxxxxxxxxx (scott bradner) writes:
> one example from section 3.1 -
> Although the approval of the ISOC President/CEO or ISOC Board of
> Trustees may be required for some contracts, their review should be
> limited to protecting ISOC's liabilities and financial stability.
>
> This says that the ISOC president (or accountant or lawyer) is not
> permitted to tell the IAD that they know that a proposed contractor is a
> dead beat and never gets anything done - or that they spotted a flaw in
> the bid that could double the cost - that seems very silly indeed - I
> see no reason that the ISOC folk can not be full partners in evaluation
> processes with the IAD (and IAOC) making the final decisions - anything
> less is willfully putting the IAD, IAOC and ISOC in a non optimum place.
> I understand that the general desire is for the IAD to operate without
> nitpicking from the ISOC folk but an bright line of separate thinking
> zones is far from the best way to do that
I think the key point here is to distinguish the kinds of comments
ISOC can make--which I agree should be relatively unconstrained
from the grounds on which they can refuse to approve, which
should be tightly constrained. I think this can be easily
solved by slightly wordsmithing the last sentence, to read:
approval may not be denied for any reason other than
protecting ISOC's liabilities and financial stability.
> I'm not that sure that this document should be so specific as to say
> that the IAOC has a separate bank account - seems to me that the
> following principals need to be established
> 1/ that all of the IETF-related funds have to be fully and
> transparently accounted for
> 2/ that the ISOC will ensure that there are adequate funds to
> cover the budgeted activities of the IAOC when they are needed
> 3/ the IAD (or another designated member of the IAOC in case of
> the disability or unavailability of the IAD) has an ability to
> commit funds (e.g. direct that checks be cut and sent - that
> could be by giving the IAD the right to sign checks or just
> the authority to direct that checks be signed - I do not
> think there is a difference in day to day operation)
I don't think I agree here. The basic principle is that the
money in question belongs to IETF. I suppose that it in some
theoretical sense it doesn't which bank account it goes into, but
when you have separate pools of money, one general puts them
in separate accounts.
> 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
I think the principle is more than available: it's a matter of
who they belong to.
-Ekr
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf