Scott, w.r.t. your rcomments on IASA Funding section. I will be doing a separate posting with some questions, but wanted to try and respond to your specific comments first, see below. > section 5 > > 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 well, that is how we tried to address the below principles. > following principals need to be established > 1/ that all of the IETF-related funds have to be fully and > transparently accounted for agreed > 2/ that the ISOC will ensure that there are adequate funds to > cover the budgeted activities of the IAOC when they are needed I guess you mean IASA instead of IAOC Other than that, agreed > 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) > agreed. I also believe that we (IETF) want to ensure that reserve funds get build and that all the funds that have been alloocated to IASA/IETF stay with IASA for IASA to use for IETF admin support functions. > > section 5.1 > All meeting revenues go into the IASA account. > > note that there may be a startup phase where this is not the case > because the existing systems will be in place until RFPs are created, > responses evaluated, contractors hired and transition completed > I agree that during startup things may be a bit different. But do we have to describe transitional things in the BCP ? It seems you agree we (IETF) need/want to have a special bank account for collecting the meeting fees, do you? Not 100% clear to me if you do. > section 5.2 > why not just say that the ISOC should not accept any in-kind donations > for the IETF without the prior OK of the IAD/IAOC? > Is that just a matter of wording/clarity? I assume you are speaking about the "usefulness" of in-kind donations, right? > sec 5.3 pp1 > 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 > > a simple point is that the document asks for quarterly deposits for a > process that has peak funding needs 3 times a year - that does not mesh > Again, initially that may not mesh, but once we have reserve funds build up, then that should not be a problem from the IASA/IETF side, should it? Maybe it is a problem from ISOC side, that I do not yet know. > I could easily see that it would be better to not have a separate > account and just use ISOC's regular processes - I would rather this > document not make an assumption on what the ISOC external accountants > might recommend (or insist on) for this sort of thing > We'll need to check with them. > sec 5.3 pp2 > see above - this should just fall under a general requirement that all > ISOC funding etc related to the IETF (and IASA) must be fully and > publicly accounted for - I see nothing special over insurance > - any more than I would see that such a requirement would not cover > office expenses if the IAD where to be located in an ISOC office > (in the US or elsewhere) or cover any employee specific expenses like > health benefits > May I assume that other responses have made it clear that we in principle seme to agree and that the "insurance" thing is just an example? > section 5.4 > I think this is almost right - I think it should say that the > aim is for there to be 6 months of non-meeting expenses available for > the IASA - I suggest this because it does not limit how the reserve > could be provided (maybe as part of a general ISOC line of credit, or > immediately available investment account) > Others have suggested that we must have the reserves in an IASA account as well. Not sure we have consensus yet on what we (IETF) want/need. Bert _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf