At 4:35 PM -0500 11/18/04, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Personally, I do not think that an IETF BCP is the correct place to
include a lot of specifics about how the accounting for the IASA
activity will be handled. I think that those details should be
worked out, and adjusted as needed, by the IAOC (in consultation
with ISOC, accountants and tax lawyers).
Personally, I think you're flat wrong. The IETF has to come to a
consensus opinion
on how this is going to work, and a BCP is how we state consensus opinions
on how things work when they aren't technical standards. The elements that
you seem to believe are details are, for many of us, fundamentals. We're
not enshrining account numbers and naming our auditing team here--we're
trying to identify how the money is expected to flow. That's something
that the community should expect to understand and consent to; after
all, a great deal of it is money they will contribute either through meeting
fees or memberships. Expert review to make sure that we're saying what
we want correctly (and that we understand the consequences) is certainly
appropriate. Asking external parties to make those decisions for us
is not a good idea. Waiting to make those decisions until the die is cast
is a startling bad one, and it isn't fair to ISOC or the IETF.
If you wish to argue that these matters should *also* appear elsewhere, I
support that--ISOC may have other ways it needs to say these things so its
other constituents hear them and know whether or not to agree. But
not talking about the money flow here when we're making an organizational
change of this magnitude would border on negligence.
Speaking personally,
Ted Hardie
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf