Correct, Carl. The issue is oversight -- who leads the committees that review the financial statements and the IAD performance. Allowing the IAD to lead the review of his/her own performance does not make sense. And I'd also argue that while it is the IAD's job to come up with the budget, that does not happen in a vaccuum -- the ISOC, IAOC and IETF community need to provide input into the service level that is expected, and those changes need to be explicit. That was, I think, Bob Kahn's point at the plenary. Rather than focussing on timelines (which after all, may change), I'd like to see more discussion of the expected working relationship. I don't think we want the "throw it over the wall" process that seems to be implied. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf