I *think* this is a "not a problem" thing.... I believe the intent is that IETF can say "we think we need 6 months reserve for our stuff", and ISOC can say "that's no problem - we have general reserves that are larger than your 6 months + the reasonable risk on other stuff".
I agree that however it is ISOC can say "that's not a problem" is sufficient,
whether insurance, operational reserves, etc. But I believe we need to
be very careful on saying that general reserves are equivalent to the
operational reserve we've requested. I believe we are asking the ISOC
to ensure that they have this level of protection pretty much no matter
what happens to its other programs, and I believe that we need to be
very frank that this is what we're asking for. If ISOC says "we can ensure
the following level of reserve, which covers 6 months of IETF activity assuming
all else is at least marginal and 3 months if every other program goes belly up",
then we need to know that's what they're saying.
Again, I don't have any concerns about how these issues are met, but I want us to be very, very clear on what we are asking for from ISOC. And if we need to change those requests to be a reasonable partner to ISOC, okay. But that clarity could save a lot of pain later on, and I think it is important. The smallest amount of hand-waiving here and now can result in lots of wind later on. regards, Ted Hardie
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf