See: https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=749 Mmmm.. I have not seen any wording proposals yet. I think we're all in sync on the fact that it IS an itertaive process, that IASA cannot just set an absurd budget and that the process needs to be aligned/synced with ISOCs budget process. So how about changing: 6. IASA Budget Process While the IASA sets a budget for the IETF's administrative needs, its budget process clearly needs to be closely coordinated with ISOC's. The specific timeline shall be established each year. A general annual timeline for budgeting is: into 6. IASA Budget Process While the IASA sets a budget for the IETF's administrative needs, its budget process clearly needs to be closely coordinated with ISOC's. The specific timeline shall be established each year by IASA and ISOC. As an example, a general annual timeline for budgeting is: And then further down change: The dates described above are subject to change, and will most likely be modified each year based on the dates of the second and third IETF meetings of that year. into The dates described above are examples and subject to change. They will most likely be modified each year based on the dates of the second and third IETF meetings of that year. They also need to be synchronised with the ISOC budgeting process. Scott, pls realize that the text already states: August 1: The IAOC approves the budget proposal for IETF purposes, after any appropriate revisions. As the ISOC President is part of the IAOC, the IAOC should have a preliminary indication of how the --> budget will fit with ISOC's own budgetary expectations. The budget proposal is passed to the ISOC Board of Trustees for review in accordance with their fiduciary duty. See the line prefixed with "-->" which I think makes it clear that the IASA budget should fit with the budget as expected by IASA. Furtehr we already have: July 1: The IAD presents a budget proposal for the following fiscal year, with 3 year projections, to the IAOC. and the 3 year projection should (in my view) give ISOC an very early view of what is coming. It does not make sense to me that IAD/IASA would just ignore such projections and ask unjustified and irrealistic amounts of money. Anyway, if the sugegsted text changes are not enough for you, pls suggest more text for us to consider/evaluate. Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of > sob@xxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 14:15 > To: harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; sob@xxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: draft-ietf-iasa-bcp-02: section 3.1 - ISOC involvement in > bugdet > > > 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 mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf