Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Hi Brian,
At 10:38 AM +0100 12/3/04, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On the other hand, transparency requires the ability to inspect the
accounts that are pertinent to the IETF, its budget vs it projected
expenditure vs its actual expenditures. This can, I believe, be
adequately handled by so-called 'divisional accounting'.
Exactly. I think the -01 draft has it right, except that I propose
adding a sentence at the end of paragraph 5 in section 2.2:
All such funds and donations shall be irrevocably assigned to the IETF.
(Like my "irrevocable" for the intellectual property, this is
intended for the bolt-blowing situation.)
Who are we trying to protect ourselves from? And what does it mean for
funds to be "irrevocably assigned to the IETF"?
While I agree that the IASA accounting needs to be transparent and
understandable, I think that we should be cautious about making public,
hard-to-change rules about our own accounting structures and fund
transfers that may limit our flexibility and/or negatively impact the
stability of the organization later.
People seem to be concerned about IETF having control of the assets
if we ever had to split off from ISOC. It was just intended to
address that concern with minimum verbiage. I don't think it constrains
cash flow arrangements.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf