Hi Brian,
At 2:26 PM +0100 12/8/04, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
What we're really trying to say is ISOC can't take (or take back) any
money or in-kind donation that has been logged in as an IETF asset.
How that is said is really a question for the legal adviser, I think.
I don't think that there is any major disagreement about this,
either... Well, except that there is no such thing as an "IETF
asset", but that can be worked around with the wording that Harald
suggested.
My concern is that we need to make sure that the BCP does not
over-proscribe the financial arrangements, which can only lead to one
of two things (1) reducing our nimbleness/flexibility, or (2) running
into enough situations where the IAOC and ISOC ignore the BCP that it
later comes to have no relevance to the actual financial structure.
I have been on the ISOC Board for about 1-1/2 years. In that time,
we done a number of things that don't easily fit into the model of
strictly separate accounts with regular quarterly payments from ISOC
to IASA: (1) We've set aside substantial amounts of money that
_might_ be spent on IETF-related activities in our budget without
allocating them, (2) We've made unplanned allocations (from the funds
we set aside) to cover IETF restructuring-related expenses, and (3)
We've covered an unanticipated cost-overrun at the RFC editor.
These were all good things to do at the time, and I don't think that
we want to set-up a budget structure that would stop us from doing
similar things in the future.
Margaret
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf