At 7:34 PM -0500 1/16/05, Lynn St.Amour wrote:
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)
For "IASA accounts" in most instances it would be more helpful to call them "IASA Cost Centers" (following ISOC's standard terminology), as this more clearly distinguishes the accounting and reporting aspects (which is what they are usually referencing) from the money/bank account aspect.
The BCP currently states that it is up to ISOC how to organize the IASA (as a cost center, subsidiary, etc.)... I think that the document is using the term "accounts" in a generic sense, and that ISOC could set-up those accounts as cost centers if that is what ISOC wants to do. ISOC could also set up IASA as a cost center now, and change the structure later if there is reason to do so (growth of one or both organizations, etc.).
- IETF accounts (or support of the IETF) - ISOC standards pillar
Are all three of these things considered equivalent? If not, how do they differ? In which category would the following items fall, for example?:
Margaret, good questions. I know you are aware of the differences but as the BCP doesn't specifically address the last two point above, I thought it might be helpful to try and define them.
The current BCP defines the following: (Note: I believe this covers everything, but if I did leave something out, it was simply an oversight).
IETF / IASA:
- Direct support to the IESG, IAB, IRTF, IETF WG's, NomComm, etc. (includes all meeting and secretariat expenses, tool development, IAD, etc.)
- Direct support to the RFC Editor, (IANA), Legal fees (D&O) Insurance
- Discretionary support to the IETF and IAB Chairs
- Staff support (finance, legal, etc.) provided by ISOC or through consultants in direct support of IETF/IASA.
- All other expenses - rent, capital equipment, etc. in direct support of IETF/IASA.
And, ISOC's Standards pillar includes
ISOC's Standard Pillar:
- All of the above (assuming we're supporting them today).
- Fundraising and Organization Member support expenses - Direct staff time, travel, marketing expenses
- ISOC staff involved in supporting IETF, attending IETF meetings, concalls, etc. (Note: ISOC operates on a cost center model and all actual staff time and expenses are charged to specific activities)
- A G&A allocation for items such as web support, Board of Trustee support, depreciation, electricity, office expenses, etc.
As I mentioned in my response to Harald, this does not match his response (which would place all of these things under IASA). So, I think we have some work to do to make this a bit clearer.
I think that your response offers a better structure. By housing IASA, I don't think that ISOC should give up its discretion to fund other standards pillar activities, and I don't think it makes sense for the IAD/IAOC to decide which members of the ISOC staff need to attend IETF meetings, etc. I also think that the structure that you have proposed supports a better separation between fund raising and IASA.
As ISOC follows a cost center model, we can be very flexible in our reporting formats. We can show a P&L and a pro-forma Balance Sheet for just the Direct IETF/IASA activities, as well as another one including the appropriate activities from our Standards pillar (or any combination the IETF finds useful). The specifics of what to include is something I believe is best left to the IAD and the IAOC (with community review as the IAOC deems appropriate) as we all move to the next level of implementation.
This makes sense, and this may be what the BCP is currently suggesting -- the IAD/IAOC reports on the IASA finances and ISOC reports on the finances for the full ISOC Standards Pillar. If so, that makes sense to me, but I think it could be a bit clearer in the document.
- Support for Non-IETF RFC publication? (Currently covered by ISOC standards pillar)
and currently covered within the current RFC Editor SOW. If this changes, so would the discussion re financial support.
Right. And, in the structure that you have described above, ISOC could choose to fund the RFC Editor's independent publication series under the ISOC Standards Pillar, even if the IETF did not choose to fund it under IASA. (I am not saying that we would -- I actually don't know what we would do in this situation, and I hope it doesn't arise).
Details (my comments are marked with ">>"):
5. Once funds or in-kind donations have been credited to the IETF accounts, they shall be irrevocably allocated to the support of the IETF.
I am not certain, for instance, whether the above principle would stop us from using money in "IETF accounts" to pay for a fund raising drive intended to raise money for improvements to the IETF infrastructure.
I believe it shouldn't but TBD per the above.
So, if some company gives a donation to "the IETF" what happens? Does ISOC deduct some sort of fundraising/administrative overhead off the top and then credit the remainder to the IASA accounts? Or does ISOC credit the whole amount to the IASA accounts? If ISOC deducts some overhead first, then I agree that it would be double dipping to go back to IASA for fund raising money. But, if we credit the whole amount, who pays for the staff costs, travel, marketing programs and/or other expenses related to fund raising?
The IAD is responsible for administering the IETF finances, managing separate financial accounts for the IASA, and establishing and administering the IASA budget.This is one place where the difference between "administering the IETF finances" and "managing separate financial accounts for the IASA" is unclear to me.
Administering IETF finances = managing the execution of such things as payments to the RFC Editor, etc. and replace "managing separate financial accounts" with "managing IASA Cost Centers" and it becomes more clear.
You are using the plural here ("Cost Centers").. Do you think that IASA will have more than one? Or that there will be a single IASA cost center?
2. Designated donations to ISOC (both monetary and in-kind);
I think that this means all ISOC donations that are designated for the support of IASA? Or to the ISOC standards pillar? Or to "support of the IETF"? Is there any difference?
I don't think there is a difference, but what about changing it to: Donations designated in support of the IETF where IETF as defined by the aggregation of the IETF agreed cost centers. If the IETF is reporting on it, there's an assumed linkage and IASA is the administrative support activity not the top-level entity.
Would ISOC still accept donations that are designated to the "ISOC standards pillar", and would these be handled any differently from donations designated "in support of the IETF"?
ISOC shall create and maintain appropriate structures and programs to coordinate donations intended to support the work of the IETF, and these shall include mechanisms for both in-kind and direct contributions to the work supported by IASA. Since ISOC will be the sole entity through whom donations may be made to the work of the IETF, ISOC shall ensure that those programs are not unduly restrictive. ISOC shall maintain programs that allow for designated donations to the IETF.
Is it intended that these funds would be dedicated to the ISOC standards pillar (as a significant number of the platinum donations are today)? Or that they would be dedicated to IASA? Or to "the IETF" in some more general sense?
I believe it should be the IETF per my comment above.
So, where would the money come from to fund the items that you have listed under the ISOC standards pillar above (the ones that aren't included in IASA)? Would it come from "IETF" donations? From non-restricted ISOC funds? Either way, this is probably okay with me. I just want to make sure that we have a common understanding of this before we go forward.
Margaret
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf