open from last version > This does not seem to admit to the possibility that the ISOC board might > say 'wait a minute - you are asking for twice as much money as you got > last year - we need to work with you to figure out a funding level that > the ISOC can support' - i.e. it is not reasonable to assume that the > ISOC BoT can carry out the above mentioned fiduciary responsibility > without being able to engage in a dialogue over budget amounts. > > An open question in my mind is the degree of detail and itemization that > the ISOC BoT needs to have to carry out the fiduciary responsibility > i.e. it seems like the ISOC might have a hard time with its auditors if > what it approved is just a line item for the IETF expenditures with no > breakdown. But on the other hand we do not want the ISOC BoT to be > arguing over how many copies of the newcomer's presentation handouts get > made. We need to figure out a reasonable process that permits the ISOC > to understand what the money is going for, be able to suggest > alternatives if they might be more efficient, and have an ability to > have input to the review of RFP responses without limiting the ability > and authority of the IAD/IAHC to make the final decisions (as long as > they stay within a budget) basically - no discussion between the ISOC and the IAD is called for in putting the budget together - that seems to be an error (if the assumption is that the ISOC reps on the IASA will be the dhisussion path then it would be good to state that - it is better to be clear than to have people in the future assume that the ISOC BoT just gets to approve a proposed IETF budget rather than think about it and teh implications for ISOC's overall budget Scott _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf