Margaret, you examples seem to be the cases where this text of rev 2 of the iasa-bcp would apply (last para of sect 6): The IAD shall provide monthly accountings of expenses, and shall update expenditures forecasts every quarter. This may require adjustment of the IASA budget: if so, the revised budget will need to be approved by the IAOC, the ISOC President/CEO and, if necessary, the ISOC Board of Trustees. I.e. unexpected things will need ad hoc handling and adjustments. Or do I not understand you? Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:margaret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 08:40 > To: Brian E Carpenter > Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand; Wijnen, Bert (Bert); ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: iasa-bcp-01 - Open Issues - Separate bank accounts > > > > Hi Brian, > > At 2:26 PM +0100 12/8/04, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >What we're really trying to say is ISOC can't take (or take back) any > >money or in-kind donation that has been logged in as an IETF asset. > >How that is said is really a question for the legal adviser, I think. > > I don't think that there is any major disagreement about this, > either... Well, except that there is no such thing as an "IETF > asset", but that can be worked around with the wording that Harald > suggested. > > My concern is that we need to make sure that the BCP does not > over-proscribe the financial arrangements, which can only lead to one > of two things (1) reducing our nimbleness/flexibility, or (2) running > into enough situations where the IAOC and ISOC ignore the BCP that it > later comes to have no relevance to the actual financial structure. > > I have been on the ISOC Board for about 1-1/2 years. In that time, > we done a number of things that don't easily fit into the model of > strictly separate accounts with regular quarterly payments from ISOC > to IASA: (1) We've set aside substantial amounts of money that > _might_ be spent on IETF-related activities in our budget without > allocating them, (2) We've made unplanned allocations (from the funds > we set aside) to cover IETF restructuring-related expenses, and (3) > We've covered an unanticipated cost-overrun at the RFC editor. > > These were all good things to do at the time, and I don't think that > we want to set-up a budget structure that would stop us from doing > similar things in the future. > > Margaret > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf