Replying in-line to both Scott and Brian.
At 9:58 AM +0100 11/19/04, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
scott bradner wrote:
fwiw - its my opinion that we should fins out if someting makes
legal or accounting sense before deciding to take that path
For sure. That has applied to all our process BCPs in the past,
for good reason. I assume that once this discussion converges,
the lawyers and accountants will be asked to review the draft.
The critical point, though, is that the community needs to converge
on what it wants to happen *before* this document is called
done. I'm very concerned by the idea that we should say
that something so fundamental to organizational relations
as the basic money flow would be decided after the fact. Leaving
that fuzzy in the documents means that the we are liable
to misinterpretation later when the cast of characters changes
or the circumstances change. Later disagreements on that won't help
ISOC and they won't help the IETF; to avoid them, these things have to
be part of the structure described *in the documents*, not the lore
surrounding them.
Again, I don't mean "name the auditing team" in the document; I
mean the far more fundamental questions of how money comes in,
who decides how to spend it, and what happens when the money
coming in doesn't match the needs (either in shortfall or surplus).
And let's face facts, guys, we did not choose an organizational
form in which this is clear cut. Had the IETF decided to merge
fully with ISOC, this would be clear; had the IETF decided to
stand up a fully fledged organization, this would be clear. But
we've chosen a form in which ISOC nurtures an organization
that is responsible for the administrative support of the IETF
while the IETF organization itself remains separate and loosely
structured. To make sure that works right over a long
time period, we're going to have to be very clear about our
expectations. If they change, we can change the documents,
but starting with them fuzzy is just the wrong mistake.
In my more folksy moments, I have said that we're aiming for a
situation in which the "IETF's administration is under ISOC's wing"
rather than one in which the "IETF is a wing of ISOC". That
resonates reasonably well for those I've talked to, as it captures
both the fact that they are independent but closely related and
that ISOC is taking on a custodial role for the administrative function.
But this is not exactly something we can hang a document on; we need
to spell out what we expect to happen. If we don't do that,
we've just handed the headache on. That's not what any of us wants.
regards,
Ted Hardie
I tend to think we should be reasonably prescriptive, but should
include a disclaimer that the IAOC is authorized to vary the
procedures for legal, accounting or practical reasons as long as it
reports the variance to the community and triggers an update of the
BCP.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf