> > 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? no - I do not think its a matter of wording - the way its currently worded the ISOC could accept anything it wanted and call it in knond donations - I'd like the IAD/IAOC to be in the lopop for all such donations > I assume you are speaking about the "usefulness" of in-kind donations, > right? more to who might consider someting useful - it should be the IETF folk not the ISOC folk on their own > I agree that during startup things may be a bit different. But do we > have to describe transitional things in the BCP ? it might be useful to say that there is a startup phase where things will not all be done the way that the BCP describes it > 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. I thought I was quite clear that I think the question of a seperate bank account to be an implementation detail that should be left to the folk directly involved and not preordaned as the only true way in this document I thought that carl suggesed a reasonable sent of words to address this > > 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. just like the above - preordaining anything this specific seems very silly (and this a particularrly silly example - if you feel that the IETF MUST (for some reason of assumed control) distate the frequency of ISOC deposits whty not at least say that the period should bee the same as the need for funds? ) - again I'd rather leave this to the people on the line with the IETF establishing WHAT we want but not presuming to know HOW that is best ensured to me anything this detail just means that it will have to be revised in short order when the specific details prove to be a non-optimal way to proceed - use Carl's words to establish the principal that everyone will agree to and let the details of how to implement the principal to the people who will be responsibe for the day to day execution > 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? but you missed the basic point of what I tried to say which is that ALL IETF-specific expendatures needed to be carefully accounted for - there is no reason to say anyting one way or the other about any specific example (including insurance) - Carl's words addressed this as well > > 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. even if that is the least reasonable way to proceed (for example having funds just sitting in a seperate ank account is not a good way to protect against inflation)? - high order bit for many of my comments - I think the authors of this document are confusing detail with principal - I do not think that specifying a lot of detail (much of which may turn out to be not the right way to do things) just to make it look like the IETF is commanding the situation is a useful way to proceed - I think its far more important to be VERY clear what the aim of specifying the details is - for example, just what is the purpose of sayting that there needs to be a seperate bank account? just insisting that there be one without saying what the purpose is will just be confusing later on - the seperate bank account must be symbolic of someting - if so then just say what its a symbol of and lets figure out the best way to meet the requirement (I can not imagine that the REQUIREMENT is a seperate bank account - the requirement could be the ability for the IETF to have a clean break later in life or someting else - but don't make people try to guess why the rules you put in the doc are in the doc just tell the reader directly) - btw - a seperate bank account but still under the legal umbrella of the ISOC may be much more of a symbol than anything real in a legal sense Scott _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf