Thanks Margaret for your reaction. It is clear we have a quite different opinion. I guess we need quite a few more people to speak up in order for Harald to be able to try and see consensus. Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:margaret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 14:52 > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); sob@xxxxxxxxxxx; brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: Issue: #748: Section 5.4 - Quarterly deposits > inappropriate > > > > Hi Bert, > > At 11:13 PM +0100 12/21/04, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: > >May be I need to explain my (personal) thinking. > > This is good, because your personal thinking does not match my > personal thinking and perhaps that is why we have been having trouble > coming to wording that seems right to both of us. > > >In my view, just as an example, if we have this budget: > > > >Revenues: expenses $5M > >- meeting fees $ 2M > >- earmarked donations: $ 2M > >- ISOC budget $ 1M > > > >and at the end of the year it turnes out that we adhered to > th $5M spending > >and that the meeting fees and earmarked donations are say $ > 5M, then I > >would hope we can set aside $1 M for reserve funds for > possible future > >shortfalls and/or disasters. > >I'd hope that ISOC would still be willing to allocate $ 1M for IETF > >(at least untill we have our defined reserve fund established). > > With the same budget numbers, I would, personally, think > about it like this: > > ISOC has agreed to cover a $5M budget. The IASA is only anticipating > $2M in meeting revenue. This means that ISOC needs to raise funds > (in one form or another) to cover $3M worth of expenses. > > If meeting fees and/or designated donations do cover the full $5M, > the budget is covered. If these revenue sources do not cover the > full $5M, ISOC will need to cover the remaining expenses from > non-IASA-specific funds. > > I think that you are making a mistake when you consider the > "earmarked donations" and the "ISOC budget" to be two separate > revenue streams. ISOC will have fund raising programs, and _all_ of > the donations that ISOC collects from those programs are ISOC > revenue. Some of that revenue may be earmarked to specific projects > (IASA is only one of many projects that people may choose to fund) > and/or collected via project-specific fund raising efforts, but all > of this revenue and all related expenses are included in the ISOC > budget. > > I don't know whether or not IETF meeting fees will be included in the > ISOC budget. That will depend on whether we view meeting fees and > expenses as IASA budget items, or whether the meetings are run in > such a way that only the surplus from the meetings shows up on the > ISOC/IASA books. > > >In fact I would rather see a budget: > > > >revenues: expenses > >- meeting fees $ 2M allocate to reserve fund $.5M > >- earmarked donations: $ 2M normal expenses $4.5M > >- ISOC budget $ 1M > > > >And then if meeting fees turn out to generate an extra 1M > without extra > >cost, then put the extra 1M in the reserve fund so we get to > our defined > >"reserve" faster. > > You still seem to be thinking that there is a goal to create a > separate IASA reserve fund. I don't think that makes sense. The > overall ISOC organization will be more flexible, and more resilient > with a single, larger reserve that can cover the full operation > (including IASA) than it will be if we hold separate "ISOC" and > "IASA" reserves. > > If the meeting fees and designated donations exceed the IASA budget > on an ongoing basis, we will build-up some IASA-specific funds that > could be used as a first line reserve, but I don't think that should > be our goal, so I don't understand why we would want a budget that > tried to achieve that. > > Margaret > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf