--On 15. januar 2005 20:17 -0500 Margaret Wasserman <margaret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
ISSUE #2:
The following three terms are used in this document, and it is not clear if there is intended to be any difference between them:
- IASA accounts (or IASA budget) - IETF accounts (or support of the IETF) - ISOC standards pillar
Are all three of these things considered equivalent?
I would regard the two first as equvalent, and we should hunt out all occurences of "IETF accounts", and replace them with "IASA accounts".
I do not regard the terms you have in parentheses as equivalents, however - the IASA budget is a document that is prepared, approved, presented to the community and archived, saying what IASA's plans are for a given year, and "support of the IETF" may be money (accounted for in accounts), in-kind donations (accounted for in accounts) or work (not accounted for).
WRT the ISOC standards pillar, I would say that that is ISOC's business to decide; the IETF wants the work defined as "IASA" done, and it's up to ISOC, not the IETF, whether it has any further use for the name "standards pillar" after establishing IASA as a distinct, accountable-for entity.
I think all of these, and the overhead costs of running an organization at all (BoT and all that) are costs of providing the support of the IETF through ISOC, and therefore they should be accounted for as part of the IASA. But I did not get much response last time the question got asked, so for all I know, I may be alone in that view....If not, how do they differ? In which category would the following items fall, for example?:
- Fund raising that benefits the IETF or related activities? (Current part of the ISOC standards pillar) - Sending someone to a meeting of another standards body? (Has been covered by IETF chairs fund in past) - Flying ISOC staff to IETF, IAB or IASA meetings? (Currently covered by ISOC standards pillar)
- Support for Non-IETF RFC publication? (Currently covered by ISOC standards pillar)
I know that I think IASA should keep the current RFC Editor contract in place for 2005 (which means that IETF support should pay for the independent submission series this year), and that this question should be addressed as part of the negotiation for an open process in 2006 - at the moment, the independent publication series is totally resource-starved because the IETF has been increasing its output quite a bit, and I don't think that's optimal for the Internet.
Harald
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf