What you ask the ISOC to be is to be the IETF's Bank.
At 10:38 03/12/2004, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
avri@xxxxxxx wrote:In thinking about this, I think about the fungibility of funds.
By having a common account, cash flow issues that might be an issue at various points of the year can be dealt with more easily. For example if funds are earmarked for meeting fees, but collections have not come in time for the year's first meeting, it is simpler to deal with when the funds come from a common account.
In other words this is money lending business. How do you see the profit/loss shared, reported and taxed?
Are payments accepted in different currencies? This currency exchange business. On a permanent basis.
On the other hand, transparency requires the ability to inspect the accounts that are pertinent to the IETF, its budget vs it projected expenditure vs its actual expenditures. This can, I believe, be adequately handled by so-called 'divisional accounting'.
This means that IETF is a Division of ISOC and ISOC is legally responsible for the consequences of the deeds of the IETF.
May I recall that IETF has no legal/tax representative but that ISOC has local incoporated chapters. Who is going to pay for their legal defense in the case someone sues one them as the local representative of their parent organization division?
As a local ISOC Member, I want a wording telling Judges that in no way, local ISOC Chapters can be taken as responsible for the consequences of the Internet documents publised by the ISOC IETF division. This will have probably no legal impact in case of an action against them as a local ISOC representative, but it will permit the ISOC chapters to be reimbursed by ISOC if they have been judged partly accountable for the result of using the ISOC's IETF department deliveries and of their public information.
jfc
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf