The second paragraph in this section says:
If ISOC directly funds any other IETF expenses, such as the IETF
share of ISOC's liability insurance premium, this will be documented
together with the other IASA accounts.
I'm not really sure what this means...
There are some complexities to this budgeting process that aren't
> captured in this document, and I don't think that they should be.
> However, calling out one particular point (such as insurance) really
> begs the question of why other things that fall into this category are
> not called out. I would prefer that we simply delete this paragraph from the
BCP.
It does seem likely to me that there will be a single ISOC D&O insurance
policy and that the costs of that policy will be allocated to the ISOC
> standards pillar as part of the overhead. But, I don't understand the
> point of calling out this particular expense as something special...
> There are other costs (such as paying a qualified accountant to figure
> these things out) that will also fall into this category.
This text is my fault.
I agree - the insurance is only an example, but since it appears to be
singled out, let's lose the example. Then it could read
If ISOC pays any other IETF expenses directly, without transferring funds
to the IASA, this will be documented as a footnote to the IASA accounts.
And why specify this? For transparency. Otherwise we might slip back into
the old regime of hidden expenditures and lack of a clear overview of the
budget.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf