Fundamentally, I feel we are trying to over-design a quite subtle process. I can live with any of the proposed texts, since (as John's note below shows) there are enough subtleties that the IAOC will be feeling its way for the first year or two. We may be able to codify the process later, but not now.
Brian
John C Klensin wrote:
Maybe I don't understand this either but, in my ignorance, let me make a suggestion (about which I'm a little uncomfortable, see below).
It seems to me that, realistically, the total IASA budget consists of two parts:
* Whatever the IAOC chooses to try to spend out of IETF-designated cash on hand, e.g., meeting fees as well as any targeted funds. * Everything else, which the IAOC would like ISOC to come up with out of other funds or raise.
Rather than dancing around that issue, why not make it explicit that the request to ISOC gets submitted in two parts. For the first, the ISOC would need really good reasons to say "no", with the assumption going in that there are no such reasons (but I don't think the BCP should overconstrain things). For the second, the IAOC is expected to ask nicely with the understanding that there might be some negotiation. Now, the two are not completely separable, since ISOC could (and, IMO, should) reasonably want to look at the details and budget justification for the first, at least to the extent needed to determine that some large number of boggles are not buried there with the intent of shifting all of the "must fund" items into the "ISOC general funds" part. But, assuming that proposed costs are reasonably balanced and allocated between the two pools, if what you really want is to treat them as distinct, why not think about things on that basis?
The disclaimer/discomfort is that this feels to me as if it is really too much detail to put into the BCP. To have these things sorted out, at least as the "this is our hypothesis, we will try it unless/until it turns out not to work well, and if that happens, we will try something else" level, seems entirely reasonable to me, while locking in one strategy or mechanism does not.
john
--On Wednesday, 22 December, 2004 00:18 +0100 Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
--On tirsdag, desember 21, 2004 16:01:58 -0500 Scott Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
See the line prefixed with "-->" which I think makes it clear that the IASA budget should fit with the budget as expected by IASA.
I think you mean "the IASA budget should fit with the budget as expected by the ISOC"
but the line you point to does not say that- the line would allow the IAOC to come up with a budget twice as big as the ISOC expected - the IAOC would know its twice as big - that is not the same thing as saying that the budget needs to fit within a value that the ISOC could support considering its revenues
Scott,
I *still* don't understand what point you're trying to make, or why it needs to be made.
I think the IASA needs to tell ISOC a reasonable budget for the IETF. That's a job that the BCP says lives with IASA and the IAD, *NOT* the ISOC BoT. If IASA says it needs twice as much money as it has, it needs to explain why. Presumably they will not do so for no reason. Then, ISOC has to either say "we can come up with that money" or "we can't come up with that money".
If ISOC says "no", IASA and the IAD has to come up with a new plan - that's already provided for.
But I think saying "look at ISOC's budget 6 months ahead of its approval, make a plan that fits within that bugdet, and make absolutely no requests, ever, for more money" is a silly way to constrain the IAD.
I think Bert's text is OK.
Harald
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf