-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Based on the discussion on the list including Christian's note that said:
The current platinum sponsors of ISOC are Afilias Limited, APNIC,
ARIN,
Microsoft, RIPE NCC, and the Swedish International Development
Cooperation Agency (SIDA). Most of these sponsors, including
Microsoft,
designate their funds for "standard activities". These standard
activities are typically IETF related, but they are not necessarily
managed through "the IETF". The current list includes: RFC Editor,
scholarship funding for needy IETF participants to attend meetings,
activities of the IAB, IESG, IRTF, special workshops of the IETF,
travel
for IETF related activities, "errors and omissions" insurance coverage
for IESG, IAB, and Working Group Chairs, communications charges for
conference calls of the IAB, IESG, and IRTF.
Forcing a particular bank account structure does not appear helpful.
What is helpful, on the other hand, is a yearly report explaining how
the contributions are actually used. Even large companies like
Microsoft
don't like signing $100,000 checks without knowing how the money will
be
spent.
I'd like to suggest that section 5.6 be changed to read:
As an initial guideline and in normal operating circumstances, the
IASA
should be able to count on an operating reserve for its activities
sufficient to cover 6-months of non-meeting operational expenses, plus
twice the recent average for meeting contract guarantees. Rather than
having the IASA attempt to build that reserve in separate accounts,
the
IASA looks to ISOC to build and provide that operational reserve,
through whatever mechanisms ISOC deems appropriate: line of credit,
financial reserves, meeting cancellation insurance, and so forth.
Such
reserves do not appear instantaneously; the goal is to reach this
level
of reserves within 3 years after the creation of the IASA. Such funds
shall be available for use by IASA for use in the event of IETF
meeting
cancellation or other unexpected fiscal emergencies.
Under current conditions it is highly unlikely that an IETF-specific
surplus will be developed anytime soon, so I do not think its necessary to
spend too much time planning for what to do with one (which I think is
what
Leslie was saying).
In round numbers, the expected budget for the IETF-related activities next
year is $4.1 million US (that includes $1.4 million for running meetings
and $2.7 million for all other expenses including the IAD, secretariat
costs, insurance, RFC Editor, IESG & IAB support etc). If the attendance
at the meetings and the meeting fees stay the same, the meetings will
bring
in about $2 million. That leaves about $2.1 million for the ISOC to pick
up. This is about half a million more support than the ISOC budgeted this
year, and a bit over double ISOC's 2003 figure.
Clearly, any donations to the ISOC like the ones that Christian mentions,
that specify that the donations are to be used to support "standard
activities" would have to only be used to support standard activities. But
it is likely to be a while before such designated donations could exceed
the IASA costs that the ISOC will be responsible to cover.
Regards,
Fred Baker
/=====================================================================/
| Fred Baker | 1121 Via Del Rey |
| Chairman, ISOC BoT | Santa Barbara, California |
+--------------------------------+ 93117 USA |
| Nothing will ever be attempted,| phone: +1-408-526-4257 |
| if all possible objections must| fax: +1-413-473-2403 |
| be first overcome. | mobile:+1-805-637-0529 |
| Dr. Johnson, Rasselas, 1759| |
/=====================================================================/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.3
iQA/AwUBQcpgUG4xHWxyLJtDEQLMEgCgju6Dt1YLmcDEGwpYWN2Ki3wl4B8An1dn
0vSraJ2dVBR1WaWUGOHS8x7N
=YYYa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf