sob(_at_)harvard(_dot_)edu (scott bradner) writes:
one example from section 3.1 -
Although the approval of the ISOC President/CEO or ISOC Board of
Trustees may be required for some contracts, their review should be
limited to protecting ISOC's liabilities and financial stability.
This says that the ISOC president (or accountant or lawyer) is not
permitted to tell the IAD that they know that a proposed contractor is a
dead beat and never gets anything done - or that they spotted a flaw in
the bid that could double the cost - that seems very silly indeed - I
see no reason that the ISOC folk can not be full partners in evaluation
processes with the IAD (and IAOC) making the final decisions - anything
less is willfully putting the IAD, IAOC and ISOC in a non optimum place.
I understand that the general desire is for the IAD to operate without
nitpicking from the ISOC folk but an bright line of separate thinking
zones is far from the best way to do that
I think the key point here is to distinguish the kinds of comments
ISOC can make--which I agree should be relatively unconstrained
from the grounds on which they can refuse to approve, which
should be tightly constrained. I think this can be easily
solved by slightly wordsmithing the last sentence, to read:
approval may not be denied for any reason other than
protecting ISOC's liabilities and financial stability.
I'm not that sure that this document should be so specific as to say
that the IAOC has a separate bank account - seems to me that the
following principals need to be established
1/ that all of the IETF-related funds have to be fully and
transparently accounted for
2/ that the ISOC will ensure that there are adequate funds to
cover the budgeted activities of the IAOC when they are needed
3/ the IAD (or another designated member of the IAOC in case of
the disability or unavailability of the IAD) has an ability to
commit funds (e.g. direct that checks be cut and sent - that
could be by giving the IAD the right to sign checks or just
the authority to direct that checks be signed - I do not
think there is a difference in day to day operation)
I don't think I agree here. The basic principle is that the
money in question belongs to IETF. I suppose that it in some
theoretical sense it doesn't which bank account it goes into, but
when you have separate pools of money, one general puts them
in separate accounts.
this is far to proscriptive - I do not think that the authors of this
document or the general IETF community are accounts - lets establish the
requirement that funds be available when needed but not try to dictate
the best way for that to be done - let the accountants figure that out
I think the principle is more than available: it's a matter of
who they belong to.
-Ekr
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf