Fred,
there are multiple ways of analyzing history - what you say is certainly true if you include the cost of the RFC Editor, but do not consider the contributions from the ISOC Platinum program to the standards pillar to be "designated donations" in support of the IETF. But that's water under the bridge....
I agree with you that the current document does not require the IASA to try to accumulate a surplus in its account, and my expectation is that it will not do so - so the IETF is looking to ISOC to provide operating stability for the IASA function. So I think we agree on the plan going forward from here.
Harald
--On 20. januar 2005 10:01 -0800 Fred Baker <fred@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Our point is this. We believe that the objective of the IETF should be, at this point, to ensure that it has operating stability from a funding perspective, not that it generate a surplus that it in fact never had. ISOC sees itself as a partner with IETF - giving to IETF in the form of money and other services, and accepting from IETF in the form of wisdom and support on public policy and other issues. For its part, ISOC is prepared to continue doing the necessary work - which it has been doing for perhaps a decade - to make the continued financial position of the IETF secure.
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf