and I'd like it *very* clear that a dialogue is part of the process
i.e. I'd like to see it written down so that no one has any misunderstanding
now or in the future that a dialogue is part of teh process
Scott
------
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 05:47:00 +0100
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Scott Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxxxx>, ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-02: section 3.1 - ISOC involvement in
bugdet
--On 12. desember 2004 20:33 -0500 Scott Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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
I replied on November 22 (same reply as last message):
> I don't understand your comment - given that the timeline shown in the
> BCP has the ISOC BoT working with the IAD over the budget for 4-5 months
> (July to November/December), how can you think that there will not be a
> dialogue over that period of time?
>
> This applies to multiple places in your comments - you seem to have read
> "dialogue is not explicitly mentioned" as "no dialogue is allowed to take
> place", and I simply can't understand how you came to that reading.
>
> Remember also that the ISOC President is part of the IAOC. There will
> ALWAYS be channels for making suggestions.
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf