ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Issue #740: Section 2.2 & 5.6 - IASA BCP -02 Reserves [was RE: I ASA BCP -02 Reserves - section 2.2 /7 and 5.6]

2004-12-23 09:09:25
Lynn,
Inline

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]On Behalf Of
Lynn St.Amour
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 01:45
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: IASA BCP -02 Reserves - section 2.2 /7 and 5.6


Bert, Rob,

please find below comments on "reserves".  Thanks again for 
all your efforts.


Section 2.2

7.   The IASA shall

work with ISOC to (?)


Mmm... it seems to me that the IASA should establish a target.
Having said that, I could live with the addition.

I agree that IASA and ISOC together need to work on a plan to 
actually build the reserve. That is actually stated later on in the 
sentence.

establish a target for a reserve  fund to cover normal operating 
expenses and  meeting expenses in accordance with prudent  planning, 
and ISOC shall work with the IASA  to build up and maintain the

s/reserve./reserve as part of ISOC's overall reserve strategy and 
provisioning./

The changes above are to reflect the last known agreement (at least 
from ISOC's perspective it was the last known :-) .  Some additional 
comments below.


Lynn, since this is a "principle", I would rather see harald declare
consensus on it first. I think you are right, in that we do have
similar text in sect 5.6 but I am still not sure it is just an
editorial change that I can just make.

Harald?

5.6 Operating Reserve

 As an initial guideline and in normal operating circumstances, the 
IASA should  have an operating reserve for its activities 
sufficient to cover 6-months of non-meeting  operational expenses, 
plus twice the recent  average for meeting contract guarantees. 
However, the IASA shall establish a target for a  reserve fund to 
cover normal operating expenses  and meeting expenses in accordance 
with prudent  planning.  Rather than having the IASA attempt to 
build that  reserve in its separate accounts,

I don't believe this sentence reads properly given we're following a 
divisional accounting model (more appropriately called a cost center 
model?) as the accounts will not be held physically separate. 

Not physical, I understand that.
But Sect 5.1 starts off to talk about "separate set of accounts".
And so this text in sect 5.6 just tries to be consistent with that.

W.r.t. the "divisional" vs "cost center" coounting....
We got the text on "Divisional Accounting" and on "sepearet set of
accounts" from Glenn Ricart, so what should it be. If we do make a
change we need to make it consistent over the whole doc.
Probably best to keep that for working out when we sit down with the
accountants?

Perhaps delete that part and begin the sentence with: "the IASA looks 
to ISOC to build ...." ?

??

the IASA looks to  ISOC to build and provide that operational 
reserve, through whatever mechanisms ISOC deems  appropriate: line 
of credit, financial reserves,  meeting cancellation insurance, and 
so forth.  Such reserves do not appear instantaneously; the  goal is 
to reach this level of reserves within 3  years after the creation 
of the IASA. Such funds  shall be held in reserve for use by IASA 
for use  in the event of IETF meeting cancellation or other 
unexpected fiscal emergencies. These reserves shall  only be spent 
on IETF support functions.

The penultimate sentence above seems to be redundant, and in any case 
the last two sentences are not in agreement with the earlier ones 
that say it may be held as a line of credit, etc. nor with the notion 
that the IASA would not be holding a separate reserve (2.2 - 7 seems 
to imply the same thing?).   Finally, access to these reserves would 
expect to follow normal IAOC and ISOC approval processes for any 
budget overruns and would not automatically be available for use by 
IASA in the event of meeting cancellations or other emergencies. 
Maybe replace the last two sentences with some variation of "Access 
to these reserves would expect to follow normal IAOC and ISOC 
approval processes for any budget overruns."


I believe that the current text was quite extensively discussed in the 
past. I am not sure I can just go ahaead and make changes based on
one person bringing it up. So I'd like to see more support on the list
first. 

Bert
Best regards,
Lynn

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>